Triple
T15658964
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. |
E376519
|
entity |
| Predicate | subsequentCitationBy |
P15322
|
FINISHED |
| Object |
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro is a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions for automobile dealership service advisors.
|
E1170328
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (4 steps)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
NER
Named-entity recognition
gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro | Statement: [Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., subsequentCitationBy, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Context triple: [Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., subsequentCitationBy, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro]
-
A.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
-
B.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
C.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted the definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden that definition through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
-
D.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
E.
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public employees’ lawsuits and grievances are protected by the Petition Clause only when they address matters of public concern.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NEDg
Description generation
gpt-5.1
Instruction
Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. # Instructions Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential. # Response Format Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"
Input
Entity: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Triple: [Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., subsequentCitationBy, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro]
Generated description
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro is a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions for automobile dealership service advisors.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Target entity description: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro is a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions for automobile dealership service advisors.
-
A.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
-
B.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
C.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted the definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden that definition through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
-
D.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
E.
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public employees’ lawsuits and grievances are protected by the Petition Clause only when they address matters of public concern.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (5 batches)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69d85cd1564c8190991adda63bfab4b0 |
completed | April 10, 2026, 2:13 a.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69e04ef3cb8c8190a10815b675b341c1 |
completed | April 16, 2026, 2:52 a.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69ff679bb7f0819092a98c2981bc9267 |
completed | May 9, 2026, 4:58 p.m. |
| NEDg | Description generation | batch_69ff68a1b374819089dc6fe1f252cc0f |
completed | May 9, 2026, 5:02 p.m. |
| NED2 | Entity disambiguation (via description) | batch_69ff698bf6a481908d326451232a8cbb |
completed | May 9, 2026, 5:06 p.m. |
Created at: April 10, 2026, 4:15 a.m.