Triple
T6737216
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court |
E153985
|
entity |
| Predicate | includesCase |
P1393
|
FINISHED |
| Object |
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. is a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions against a due process challenge, reflecting the Hughes Court’s deference to economic regulation.
|
E615008
|
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: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. | Statement: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court, includesCase, O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court, includesCase, O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.]
-
A.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the conflict between federal procedural rules and state laws limiting class actions in federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
B.
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association is a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that held insurance transactions across state lines are subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
-
C.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark 1928 New York Court of Appeals case, authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that established the modern American doctrine of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
Practical Law Company
Practical Law Company is a legal publishing and know‑how provider that offers practical guidance, tools, and resources to help lawyers work more efficiently.
- 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: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court, includesCase, O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.]
Generated description
O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. is a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions against a due process challenge, reflecting the Hughes Court’s deference to economic regulation.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Target entity description: O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. is a 1931 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of insurance agents’ commissions against a due process challenge, reflecting the Hughes Court’s deference to economic regulation.
-
A.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the conflict between federal procedural rules and state laws limiting class actions in federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
B.
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association is a landmark 1944 U.S. Supreme Court case that held insurance transactions across state lines are subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
-
C.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark 1928 New York Court of Appeals case, authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that established the modern American doctrine of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
Practical Law Company
Practical Law Company is a legal publishing and know‑how provider that offers practical guidance, tools, and resources to help lawyers work more efficiently.
- 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_69c6880d84d8819095d19de2295f26ac |
completed | March 27, 2026, 1:37 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69c6d1850a288190aa7e647fefbb0ede |
completed | March 27, 2026, 6:50 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69c70b09b97c8190a5a538571b6909f0 |
completed | March 27, 2026, 10:56 p.m. |
| NEDg | Description generation | batch_69c70bda97f08190bc6dab7177341876 |
completed | March 27, 2026, 10:59 p.m. |
| NED2 | Entity disambiguation (via description) | batch_69c70c51e0148190be64afb56690b34f |
completed | March 27, 2026, 11:01 p.m. |
Created at: March 27, 2026, 2:10 p.m.