standardAnnounced
P29339
predicate
Indicates that an official standard has been formally announced or made public.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| standardAnnounced canonical | 23 |
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: standardAnnounced
Generated description
Indicates that an official standard has been formally announced or made public.
Sample triples (23)
| Subject | Object |
|---|---|
| Griggs v. Duke Power Co. | business necessity ⓘ |
| Griggs v. Duke Power Co. | job relatedness ⓘ |
| Schenck v. United States | whether the words used create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent ⓘ |
| Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee | set guideposts for evaluating Section 2 vote-denial claims ⓘ |
| FCC v. Pacifica Foundation | indecent material may be restricted to times of day when children are less likely to be in the audience ⓘ |
| Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education | deliberate indifference standard for peer harassment under Title IX ⓘ |
| Illinois v. Gates | totality of the circumstances test for probable cause ⓘ |
| Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. | totality of the circumstances test for hostile work environment ⓘ |
| Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. | reasonable person standard for determining whether the environment is hostile or abusive ⓘ |
| Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. | conduct must be both objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive ⓘ |
| Graham v. Florida | meaningful opportunity for release based on maturity and rehabilitation ⓘ |
| Hudson v. McMillian | The core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. ⓘ |
| Rochin v. California | shocks the conscience ⓘ |
| Wesberry v. Sanders | as nearly as practicable equal population among congressional districts within a state ⓘ |
|
The rigid two-pronged Aguilar–Spinelli test is abandoned in favor of a more flexible totality of the circumstances approach.
surface form:
Illinois v. Gates
|
totality of the circumstances ⓘ |
| Herring v. United States | Exclusionary rule applies when police conduct is deliberate, reckless, grossly negligent, or involves recurring or systemic negligence. ⓘ |
| Hall v. Florida | IQ scores must be interpreted as a range rather than a fixed number in capital cases ⓘ |
| Baze v. Rees | substantial risk of serious harm standard for method-of-execution challenges ⓘ |
| Ohio v. Roberts | adequate indicia of reliability ⓘ |
| Ohio v. Roberts | firmly rooted hearsay exception ⓘ |
| Ohio v. Roberts | particularized guarantees of trustworthiness ⓘ |
| Michigan v. Bryant | Primary purpose test for determining whether statements are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. ⓘ |
| Brewer v. Williams | deliberate elicitation standard under the Sixth Amendment ⓘ |