Datasets:

LavanyaPobbathi
/

lamus-roberts-court-legal-arguments

row_id int64 0 363k	sentence stringlengths 20 1.98k	case_title stringlengths 31 132	citation stringclasses 917 values	docket_number stringlengths 15 19	source_field stringclasses 2 values	court stringclasses 0 values	year int64 2.01k 2.03k	source_file stringclasses 0 values	Predicted_Label stringclasses 6 values	source stringclasses 21 values	date_decided stringdate 2005-01-11 00:00:00 2025-06-30 00:00:00 ⌀	url stringlengths 50 57
0	SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 LOCKHART V.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
4	Petitioner sued, arguing that the offset was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 31 U.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
8	In 1996, the Debt Collection Improvement Act subjected Social Security benefits to offset, “[n]otwithstanding [§407],” 31 U.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
12	Pp. 3–5. (a) The Debt Collection Improvement Act makes Social Security benefits subject to offset, providing the sort of express reference that §407(b) says is necessary to supersede the anti-attachment provision.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
16	Pp. 3–4. (c) Though the Debt Collection Improvement Act retained the Debt Collection Act’s general 10-year bar on offset authority, the Higher Education Technical Amendments retain their effect as a limited exception to the Debt Collection Act time bar in the student loan context.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
20	O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
24	S. ____ (2005) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 04-881 JAMES LOCKHART, PETITIONER v.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
28	These loans were eventually reassigned to the Department of Education, which certified the debt to the Department of the Treasury through the Treasury Offset Program.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
32	We granted certiorari, 544 U.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
36	C. §3711(a), an agency head can collect an outstanding debt “by administrative offset.” §3716(a).	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
40	In 1991, however, the Higher Education Technical Amendments, 105 Stat. 123, sweepingly eliminated time limitations as to certain loans: “Notwithstanding any other provision of statute . . . no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed, a judgment may be enforced, or an offset, garnishment, or other action initiated or taken,” 20 U.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
44	C. §3716(c)(3)(A)(i).	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
48	We need not decide the effect of express-reference provisions such as §407(b) to resolve this case.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
52	Therefore, petitioner continues, the Higher Education Technical Amendments’ abrogation of time limits in 1991 only applies to then-valid means of debt collection.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
56	III Nor does the Debt Collection Improvement Act’s 1996 recodification of the Debt Collection Act help petitioner.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
60	Finally, we decline to read any meaning into the failed 2004 effort to amend the Debt Collection Act to explicitly authorize offset of debts over 10 years old.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Conclusion	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
64	In any event, it is unclear what meaning we could read into this effort even if we were inclined to do so, as the failed amendment—which was not limited to offsets against Social Security benefits—would have had a different effect than the interpretation we advance today.	Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005)	546 U.S. 142 (2005)	Docket No. 04-881	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 7, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/
68	RICHEY on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05–101.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
72	Evidence showed that respondent set fire to the apartment of his neighbor, Hope Collins, in an attempt to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who were spending the night together in the apartment below.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
76	Respondent did not contest this forensic evidence at trial because his retained arson expert had reported that the State’s evidence conclusively established arson.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
80	The state trial court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on all claims, and the state appellate court affirmed.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
84	First, that transferred intent was not a permissible theory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law, and that the evidence of direct intent was constitutionally insufficient to support conviction.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
88	I The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the doctrine of transferred intent was inapplicable to aggravated felony murder for the version of Ohio Rev.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Issue	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
92	Richey, 64 Ohio St. 3d 353, 364, 595 N.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
96	We have repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
100	S. 347, 352 (1964), in violation of the Due Process Clause. 395 F. 3d, at 677 (citing United States v.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
104	United States, 522 U.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
108	Code Ann. §2903.01(D) (Anderson 1982) (emphasis added).	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
112	E. 2d 1294, 1305 (1988) (citing Wareham v.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
116	The foregoing provision was in effect at the time of respondent’s crime in 1986.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
120	Phillips, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72, 100, 656 N.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
124	It was not inferred from the dangerousness of the arson; it was shown to be the purpose of the arson.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
128	Lanier, supra; see also Marks v.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
132	As petitioner contends, the Sixth Circuit erred in its adjudication of this claim by relying on evidence that was not properly presented to the state habeas courts without first determining (1) whether respondent was at fault for failing to develop the factual bases for his claims in state court, see Williams v.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Issue	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
136	Compare App. to Pet. for Cert., 347a, with 395 F. 3d, at 683.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
140	Respondent, however, contends that the State failed to preserve its objection to the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on evidence not presented in state court by failing to raise this argument properly before the Sixth Circuit.	Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005)	546 U.S. 74 (2005)	Docket No. 05-101	opinion	null	2,005	null	Issue	supreme_cases_2005.json	November 28, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/
144	SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 WAGNON V.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
148	The station is meant to accommodate reservation traffic, including patrons driving to the casino the Nation owns and operates there.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
152	Granting the State summary judgment, the District Court determined that the balance of state, federal, and tribal interests tilted in favor of the State under the test set forth in White Mountain Apache Tribe v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
156	The Bracker interest-balancing test does not apply to a tax that results from an off-reservation transaction between non-Indians.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
160	S. 450, 458 (emphasis added).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
164	See, e.g., Central Machinery Co. v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
168	Such “dispositive language” from the state legislature is determinative of who bears a state excise tax’s legal incidence.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
172	Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 266 Kan. 464, 970 P. 2d 60, distinguished.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
176	The Nation’s theory that the existence of statutory deductions for certain postreceipt transactions make it impossible for a distributor to calculate its ultimate tax liability without knowing whether, where, and to whom the fuel is ultimately sold or delivered suffers from several conceptual defects.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Issue	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
180	It has never been applied where, as here, a state tax imposed on a non-Indian arises from a transaction occurring off the reservation.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
184	The Court has taken an altogether different course, by contrast, when a State asserts its taxing authority outside of Indian Country.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
188	In these circumstances, Bracker is inapplicable.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
192	This is ultimately a complaint about the state tax’s downstream economic consequences.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Issue	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
196	Nor would the Court’s analysis change if legal significance were accorded the Nation’s decision to label a portion of its gas station’s revenues as tax proceeds.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
200	While Kansas’ tax pays for roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation, including the main highway used by casino patrons, Kansas offers no such services to the several States or the Federal Government.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
204	J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	syllabus	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
208	S. ____ (2005) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 04-631 JOAN WAGNON, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPART- MENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
212	The Nation maintains that this application of the Kansas motor fuel tax is an impermissible affront to its sovereignty.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Issue	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
216	Accordingly, we reverse.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Conclusion	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
220	Seventy-three percent of the station’s fuel sales are made to casino patrons, while 11 percent of the station’s fuel sales are made to persons who live or work on the reservation.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
224	Supp.),[Footnote 1] and pass along the cost of that tax to their customers, including the Nation.[Footnote 2] The Nation sells its fuel within 2 cents per gallon of the prevailing market price.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
228	The Nation’s fuel tax generates approximately $300,000 annually, funds that the Nation uses for “ ‘constructing and maintaining roads, bridges and rights-of-way located on or near the Reservation,’ ” including the access road between the state-funded highway and the casino.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
232	The court reached this determination because “it is undisputed that the legal incidence of the tax is directed off-reservation at the fuel distributors,” Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
236	It determined that, under Bracker, the balance of state, federal, and tribal interests favored the Tribe.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
240	II Although we granted certiorari to determine whether Kansas may tax a non-Indian distributor’s off-reservation receipt of fuel without being subject to the Bracker interest-balancing test, Pet. for Cert. i, the Nation maintains that Kansas’ “tax is imposed not on the off-reservation receipt of fuel, but on its on-reservation sale and delivery,” Brief for Respondent 11 (emphasis in original).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
244	S. 450, 458 (1995) (emphasis added), and that the States are categorically barred from placing the legal incidence of an excise tax “on a tribe or on tribal members for sales made inside Indian country” without congressional authorization, id., at 459 (emphasis added).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
248	Arizona Tax Comm’n, 448 U.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
252	Brief for Respondent 15.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
256	We have suggested that such “dispositive language” from the state legislature is determinative of who bears the legal incidence of a state excise tax.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
260	S. 9, 11 (1985) (per curiam), we would nonetheless conclude that the legal incidence of the tax is on the distributor.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
264	In sum, the legal incidence of the Kansas motor fuel tax is on the distributor.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
268	Supp. 2d 1291, 1294 (Kan. 2004) (“Under the Kansas statutory scheme, the legal incidence of the state’s fuel tax falls on the ‘distributor of first receipt’ of such fuel”); Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
272	Heinemann, Office of Administrative Appeals, to Mark Burghart, Written Final Determination in Request for Informal Conference for Reconsideration of Agency Action, Davies Oil Co., Inc., Docket No. 01–970 (Jan. 3, 2002) (hereinafter Kansas Dept. of Revenue Letter) (“The legal incidence of the Kansas fuel tax rests with Davies, the distributor, who is up-stream from Nation, the retailer”).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
276	And, under the United States’ view, so long as the Kansas Supreme Court’s “ ‘definitive determination as to the operating incidence’ ” of its fuel tax is “ ‘consistent with the statute’s reasonable interpretation,’ ” it should be “ ‘deemed conclusive.’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10 (quoting Gurley v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
280	The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the station owners had standing to challenge the tax because the statute provided that the distributor was entitled to “ ‘charge and collect such tax . . . as a part of the selling price.’ ” Kaul, supra, at 474, 970 P. 2d, at 67 (quoting Kan.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
284	Kaul does not foreclose our determination that the distributor bears the legal incidence of the Kansas motor fuel tax.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
288	Id., at 473, 970 P. 2d, at 66 (identifying provisions that were repealed in 1998 as being “in effect during the period relevant to this case”); id., at 474, 970 P. 2d, at 67 (noting that a “critical statute” to its holding was the 1995 version of §79–3409, which was amended in 1998).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
292	Notably, however, the Nation presented a starkly different interpretation of the statute in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, arguing that “[t]he balancing test is appropriate even though the legal incidence of the tax is imposed on the Nation’s non-Indian distributor and is triggered by the distributor’s receipt of fuel outside the reservation.” Appellant’s Reply Brief in No. 03–3218 (CA10), p. 3 (emphasis added); see also 241 F.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
296	As written, the Kansas fuel tax provisions state that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel and such taxes shall be paid but once.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
300	That section provides: “[E]very distributor, manufacturer, importer, exporter or retailer of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels, on or before the 25th day of each month, shall render to the director . . . a report certified to be true and correct showing the number of gallons of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels received by such distributor, manufacturer, importer, exporter or retailer during the preceding calendar month . . . .	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
304	It contends that what is taxed is not the distributors’ (off-reservation) receipt of the fuel, but rather the distributors’ use, sale, or delivery of the motor fuel—in this case, the distributors’ (on-reservation) sale or delivery to the Nation.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
308	Section 79–3408(a) must be read in conjunction with subsection (c), which specifies that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel and such taxes shall be paid but once.” (Emphasis added.) The identity of the single, taxable event is revealed in the very next sentence of subsection (c), which provides that “[s]uch tax shall be computed on all . . . fuels received by each distributor.” (Emphasis added.) In short, the “use, sale or delivery” that triggers tax liability is the sale or delivery of the fuel to the distributor.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
312	Section 79–3408(d) permits distributors to obtain deductions from the Kansas motor fuel tax for certain postreceipt transactions, such as sale or delivery of fuel for export from the State and sale or delivery of fuel to the United States. §§79–3408(d)(1)–(2).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
316	First, under Kansas law, a distributor must pay the tax even for fuel that sits in its inventory—fuel that is not (or at least has not yet been) used, sold, or delivered by the distributor.[Footnote 3] But the Nation’s interpretation presumes that the tax is owed only on a distributor’s postreceipt use, sale, or delivery of fuel.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
320	C. §1 (2000 ed. and Supp.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
324	Finally, the Nation contends that its interpretation of the statute is supported by Kan.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
328	This section illustrates that a distributor pays taxes for fuel in its possession that it has not delivered or sold, and is only entitled to the refund described in this section for tax it has already paid on fuel that is subsequently destroyed.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
332	The Bracker interest-balancing test has never been applied where, as here, the State asserts its taxing authority over non-Indians off the reservation.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
336	See Bracker, supra (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on on-reservation logging and hauling operations by non-Indian contractor); Department of Taxation and Finance of N.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
340	Bureau of Revenue of N.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
344	S. 160 (tax imposed on on-reservation sale of farm machinery to Tribe).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
348	S. 685 (1965) (gross proceeds tax imposed on non-Indian retailer on Navajo Indian Reservation); Thomas v.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
352	Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
356	We have further explained that the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, which has a “significant geographical component,” Bracker, supra, at 151, requires us to “revers[e]” the “ ‘general rule’ ” that “ ‘exemptions from tax laws should . . . be clearly expressed.’ ” Sac and Fox, supra, at 124 (quoting McClanahan, supra, at 176).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
360	We have taken an altogether different course, by contrast, when a State asserts its taxing authority outside of Indian Country.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
364	If a State may apply a nondiscriminatory tax to Indians who have gone beyond the boundaries of the reservation, then it follows that it may apply a nondiscriminatory tax where, as here, the tax is imposed on non-Indians as a result of an off-reservation transaction.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
368	The application of the interest-balancing test to the Kansas motor fuel tax is not only inconsistent with the special geographic sovereignty concerns that gave rise to that test, but also with our efforts to establish “bright-line standard[s]” in the context of tax administration.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
372	S. 251, 267–268 (1992).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Others	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
376	Such an expansion of the application of the Bracker test is not supported by our cases.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
380	Given that the Nation sells gas at prevailing market rates, its decision to impose a tax should have no effect on its net revenues from the operation of the station; it should not matter whether those revenues are labeled “profits” or “tax proceeds.” The Nation merely seeks to increase those revenues by purchasing untaxed fuel.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
384	S. 217, 220 (1959), merely because the result of imposing its taxes will be to deprive the Tribes of revenues which they currently are receiving”).	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Rule/Law/Holding	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
388	Economic burdens on the competing sovereign . . . do not alter the concurrent nature of the taxing authority”).[Footnote 6] B Finally, the Nation contends that the Kansas motor fuel tax is invalid notwithstanding the inapplicability of the interest-balancing test, because it “exempts from taxation fuel sold or delivered to all other sovereigns,” and is therefore impermissibly discriminatory.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Analysis	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
392	While Kansas uses the proceeds from its fuel tax to pay for a significant portion of the costs of maintaining the roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation, including the main highway used by the Nation’s casino patrons, Kansas offers no such services to the several States or the Federal Government.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Facts	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/
396	The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.	Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)	546 U.S. 95 (2005)	Docket No. 04-631	opinion	null	2,005	null	Conclusion	supreme_cases_2005.json	December 6, 2005	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/

End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

LAMUS: Roberts Court Legal Arguments (2005-2025)

The Current Supreme Court Era - Chief Justice John Roberts

📋 Dataset Description

This dataset contains 362,891 sentences from U.S. Supreme Court opinions during the Roberts Court era (2005-2025), automatically labeled with legal argument categories. This represents the current Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Why Roberts Court?

The Roberts Court is particularly significant for legal research because:

🏛️ Current Court: Ongoing decisions shaping modern law
⚖️ Contemporary Issues: Addresses current legal challenges
📱 Digital Era: Opinions readily available electronically
🔬 Recent Precedents: Most relevant for current legal practice

📊 Dataset Statistics

Metric	Value
Total Sentences	362,891
Time Period	2005 - 2025
Chief Justice	John G. Roberts Jr.
Label Categories	6
Labeling Model Accuracy	85.16%

Label Distribution

Label	Count	Percentage
Rule/Law/Holding	~100,800	27.8%
Analysis	~97,500	26.9%
Facts	~87,100	24.0%
Others	~47,200	13.0%
Conclusion	~18,100	5.0%
Issue	~12,200	3.4%

🏷️ Label Categories

Label	Description	Example
Facts	Background details, case history, evidence	"The petitioner was arrested on March 15, 2018."
Issue	Legal question(s) being addressed	"The question before us is whether the Fourth Amendment..."
Rule/Law/Holding	Legal rules, statutes, precedents	"Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate..."
Analysis	Legal reasoning, interpretation	"Applying this standard, we find that the statute..."
Conclusion	Final decisions, judgments	"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."
Others	Procedural text, citations, headers	"Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court."

📁 Data Fields

Field	Type	Description
`row_id`	int64	Unique identifier
`sentence`	string	The legal sentence text
`case_title`	string	Name of the case (e.g., "Dobbs v. Jackson")
`citation`	string	Legal citation (e.g., "597 U.S. 215")
`docket_number`	string	Court docket number
`source_field`	string	Part of opinion (syllabus, opinion, dissent)
`court`	string	"Roberts Court"
`year`	int64	Year of decision
`source_file`	string	Original source file
`Predicted_Label`	string	ML-predicted argument label
`date_decided`	string	Decision date
`url`	string	Link to original opinion

🚀 Usage

Quick Start

from datasets import load_dataset

# Load the Roberts Court dataset
dataset = load_dataset("LavanyaPobbathi/lamus-roberts-court-legal-arguments")

# Access the data
data = dataset["train"]
print(f"Total sentences: {len(data):,}")

# View a sample
print(data[0])

Load as Pandas DataFrame

import pandas as pd
from datasets import load_dataset

dataset = load_dataset("LavanyaPobbathi/lamus-roberts-court-legal-arguments")
df = dataset["train"].to_pandas()

# Analyze by year
yearly_counts = df.groupby('year').size()
print(yearly_counts)

Filter by Label

# Get only Analysis sentences
analysis = df[df["Predicted_Label"] == "Analysis"]
print(f"Analysis sentences: {len(analysis):,}")

Filter by Case

# Find sentences from a specific case
case_name = "Dobbs"
case_data = df[df["case_title"].str.contains(case_name, na=False)]
print(f"Sentences from {case_name}: {len(case_data)}")

🔬 Methodology

Labeling Model

The sentences were labeled using a fine-tuned Llama-3-8B model:

Parameter	Value
Base Model	Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Method	QLoRA (4-bit quantization)
Learning Rate	2e-4
LoRA Rank	16
Epochs	3
Test Accuracy	85.16%

Training Data

The model was trained on 2,585 manually annotated sentences from Texas criminal court cases.

📚 Related Datasets

This is a subset of the complete LAMUS SCOTUS dataset:

Dataset	Sentences	Years	Link
Full SCOTUS	2,900,083	1921-2025	lamus-scotus-legal-arguments
Roberts Court	362,891	2005-2025	This dataset

🏛️ Notable Roberts Court Cases Included

The dataset includes landmark cases such as:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
And many more...

📖 Citation

@dataset{lamus_roberts_2026,
  title={LAMUS: Roberts Court Legal Arguments Dataset},
  author={Pobbathi, Lavanya and Wang, Serene and Chen, Haihua},
  year={2026},
  publisher={Hugging Face},
  url={https://huggingface.co/datasets/LavanyaPobbathi/lamus-roberts-court-legal-arguments}
}

📄 License

This dataset is released under the MIT License.

The underlying Supreme Court opinions are in the public domain as U.S. government works.

👥 Authors

Lavanya Pobbathi - University of North Texas
Serene Wang - University of North Texas
Haihua Chen - University of North Texas (Supervisor)

🔗 Links

Downloads last month: 12

Size of downloaded dataset files:

133 MB

Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:

35.8 MB

Number of rows:

362,891