Claim Details
View detailed information about this claim and its related sources.
Claim Information
Complete details about this extracted claim.
- Claim Text
-
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177โ78 (1803).
- Simplified Text
-
5 U S (1 Cranch) 137 177โ78 in 1803
- Confidence Score
- 1.000
- Claim Maker
- The author
- Context Type
- Legal Case
- Context Details
-
{ "page": "137", "year": "1803", "volume": "5", "reporter": "U.S. (Cranch)", "page_range": "177-178" } - UUID
- a1164051-b11e-451c-9482-bacec3878641
- Vector Index
- โ No vector
- Created
- February 15, 2026 at 3:30 PM (6 months ago)
- Last Updated
- February 15, 2026 at 3:30 PM (6 months ago)
Original Sources for this Claim (1)
All source submissions that originally contained this claim.
Completed
Analysis
166
claims
๐ฅ
1 week ago
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/confusion-and-clarity-in-the-case-for-supreme-court-reform/
This article analyzes the arguments for and against Supreme Court reform, focusing on formal and substantive disagreements. It examines historical precedents for reform and argues that the current movement stems from concerns about the Court's recent decisions.
Similar Claims (5)
Other claims identified as semantically similar to this one.
-
Simplified: U S Const art III ยง 16 months ago
-
Simplified: 301 U.S. 1 (1937) is a legal citation6 months ago
-
Simplified: West Virginia v EPA 142 S Ct 2587 2616 in 2022 Shelby County v Holder 570 U S 529 556โ57 in 2013 Citizens United v FEC 558 U S 310 365 in 20106 months ago
-
Simplified: Enslaved party was involved in Dred Scott v Sandford6 months ago
-
Simplified: Cooper v Aaron 358 U S 1 18 1958.6 months ago