holding
P2237
predicate
Indicates that one entity is physically grasping, carrying, or keeping another entity in its possession or control.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| holding canonical | 1,640 |
| keeps | 35 |
| emergedHolding | 2 |
Description generation (PDg)
The one-sentence description above was generated by prompting gpt-5.1 with the predicate name and this instruction.
Instruction
Given a predicate that represents a relationship or action between entities, generate a one-sentence description explaining its meaning. # Instructions Focus on describing the relationship, not the entities themselves. # Response Format Begin the description with \' Indicates...\'
Input
Predicate: holding
Generated description
Indicates that one entity is physically grasping, carrying, or keeping another entity in its possession or control.
Sample triples (1,677)
| Subject | Object |
|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional. ⓘ |
| Marbury v. Madison | Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, to the extent it purported to expand the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, was unconstitutional. ⓘ |
| Marbury v. Madison |
William Marbury had a right to his commission as justice of the peace.
ⓘ
linked to:
Marbury v. Madison
|
| Marbury v. Madison | A writ of mandamus was the appropriate remedy for Marbury, but the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue it in this case. ⓘ |
| Brown v. Board of Education | racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional ⓘ |
| Brown v. Board of Education | separate educational facilities are inherently unequal ⓘ |
| Bush v. Gore | the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ |
| Bush v. Gore | no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the relevant deadlines ⓘ |
| United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion | Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ |
| United States v. Virginia (1996) majority opinion | Virginia must show an exceedingly persuasive justification for gender-based classifications ⓘ |
| Steward Machine Co. v. Davis | upheld the unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act ⓘ |
| Steward Machine Co. v. Davis | Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare under Article I, Section 8 ⓘ |
| Steward Machine Co. v. Davis | the federal unemployment tax scheme did not constitute unconstitutional coercion of the states ⓘ |
| Steward Machine Co. v. Davis | the challenged provisions did not violate the Tenth Amendment ⓘ |
| Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council | Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma is preempted by federal law ⓘ |
| Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council | state Burma law conflicted with federal Burma sanctions regime ⓘ |
| Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council | federal Burma sanctions statute occupies the field with respect to sanctions against Burma ⓘ |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. ⓘ |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. ⓘ |
| United States v. Nixon | The President is not entitled to an absolute, unqualified executive privilege against judicial process in criminal proceedings ⓘ |
| United States v. Nixon | A generalized interest in confidentiality does not justify withholding evidence in a criminal trial ⓘ |
| United States v. Nixon | Courts have the authority to review claims of executive privilege ⓘ |
| United States v. Nixon |
President Nixon was required to comply with a subpoena duces tecum and produce tape recordings and documents
ⓘ
linked to:
United States v. Nixon
|
| McCulloch v. Maryland | Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to create a national bank ⓘ |
| McCulloch v. Maryland | the State of Maryland may not tax instruments of the national government ⓘ |
| McCulloch v. Maryland | federal law is supreme over conflicting state law ⓘ |
| Arizona v. United States | Federal law preempts several provisions of Arizona S.B. 1070 regulating immigration enforcement. ⓘ |
| Arizona v. United States | States may not enact or enforce immigration policies that conflict with federal immigration law. ⓘ |
| Arizona v. United States | Section 3 of S.B. 1070, creating a state crime for failure to carry federal registration documents, is preempted. ⓘ |
| Arizona v. United States | Section 5(C) of S.B. 1070, criminalizing unauthorized aliens seeking or engaging in work, is preempted. ⓘ |
| Arizona v. United States | Section 6 of S.B. 1070, authorizing warrantless arrests based on possible removability, is preempted. ⓘ |
| Arizona v. United States | Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, requiring officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status during lawful stops, is not facially preempted. ⓘ |
| Hines v. Davidowitz | Federal alien-registration law preempts conflicting state alien-registration laws. ⓘ |
| Hines v. Davidowitz | States may not impose additional or conflicting alien-registration requirements where Congress has enacted a comprehensive federal scheme. ⓘ |
| NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. | The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 is constitutional as applied to the respondent ⓘ |
| NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. | Congress may regulate labor relations when they have a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce ⓘ |
| NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. |
The National Labor Relations Board may order reinstatement of workers fired for union activity in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce
ⓘ
linked to:
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
|
| Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | Congress may prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause ⓘ |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause ⓘ |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | Places of public accommodation that serve interstate travelers or use goods that have moved in interstate commerce may be regulated by Congress ⓘ |
| Obergefell v. Hodges | same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| Obergefell v. Hodges | states must license marriages between two people of the same sex ⓘ |
| Obergefell v. Hodges | states must recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed out of state ⓘ |
| Reynolds v. United States | The Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief but not all religiously motivated conduct ⓘ |
| Reynolds v. United States | The Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws ⓘ |
| Reynolds v. United States | Laws banning polygamy do not violate the Free Exercise Clause ⓘ |
| Reynolds v. United States | Religious duty is not a defense to a criminal indictment ⓘ |
| Wisconsin v. Yoder |
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the State of Wisconsin from compelling Amish parents to send their children to formal high school after the eighth grade.
ⓘ
linked to:
Free Exercise Clause
|
| Wisconsin v. Yoder | Compulsory school attendance laws may not be applied in a manner that unduly burdens the free exercise of religion when the state cannot show a sufficiently compelling interest. ⓘ |
| Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah | City ordinances targeting Santería animal sacrifice violated the Free Exercise Clause ⓘ |