Dataset Viewer
answer
stringclasses 3
values | index
stringclasses 6
values | text
stringclasses 6
values | input
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|
allowed | 0 | The appeal from the reassessment dated October 29, 2018 made under the Income Tax Act for the 2017 taxation year is allowed, without costs, and the reassessment is vacated in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July 2020.
David E. Spiro
Spiro J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal from the reassessment dated October 29, 2018 made under the Income Tax Act for the 2017 taxation year is allowed, without costs, and the reassessment is vacated in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July 2020.
David E. Spiro
Spiro J.
OUTCOME: |
allowed | 1 | This appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and further redeterminations on the bases that the Appellant is entitled to the denied CCTB benefit payments for the beginning of each month within the period July 2013 through to and including March 2015, and also that the Appellant is entitled to the denied GSTC benefit payments for the beginning of each July, October, January and April within the said period July 2013 through to and including March 2015.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of July 2020.
B.Russell
Russell J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: This appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and further redeterminations on the bases that the Appellant is entitled to the denied CCTB benefit payments for the beginning of each month within the period July 2013 through to and including March 2015, and also that the Appellant is entitled to the denied GSTC benefit payments for the beginning of each July, October, January and April within the said period July 2013 through to and including March 2015.
Signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of July 2020.
B.Russell
Russell J.
OUTCOME: |
dismissed | 2 | The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.
Patrick Boyle
Boyle J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.
Patrick Boyle
Boyle J.
OUTCOME: |
dismissed | 3 | The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.
Ral Favreau
Favreau J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.
Ral Favreau
Favreau J.
OUTCOME: |
other | 4 | Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.
Upon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;
The reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.
"Gerald J. Rip"
Rip J.
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.
Upon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;
The reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.
"Gerald J. Rip"
Rip J.
OUTCOME: |
other | 5 | (Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)
Lamarre Proulx J.
[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.
[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):
[TRANSLATION]
(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.
(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.
...
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.
"Louise Lamarre Proulx"
Lamarre Proulx J.
Translation certified true
on this 31st day of October 2006
Monica F. Chamberlain, Reviser
| INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other.
Options: allowed, dismissed, other
JUDGMENT EXCERPT: (Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)
Lamarre Proulx J.
[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.
[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):
[TRANSLATION]
(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.
(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.
...
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.
"Louise Lamarre Proulx"
Lamarre Proulx J.
Translation certified true
on this 31st day of October 2006
Monica F. Chamberlain, Reviser
OUTCOME: |
DatologyAI/legalbench
Overview
This repository contains 26 legal reasoning tasks from LegalBench, processed for easy use in language model evaluation. Each task includes the original data as well as a formatted input column that can be directly fed to models for evaluation.
Task Categories
The tasks are organized into several categories:
Basic Legal Datasets
- canada_tax_court_outcomes
- jcrew_blocker
- learned_hands_benefits
- telemarketing_sales_rule
Citation Datasets
- citation_prediction_classification
Diversity Analysis Datasets
- diversity_3
- diversity_5
- diversity_6
Jurisdiction Datasets
- personal_jurisdiction
SARA Analysis Datasets
- sara_entailment
- sara_numeric
Supply Chain Disclosure Datasets
- supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_accountability
- supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_certification
- supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training
MAUD Contract Analysis Datasets
- maud_ability_to_consummate_concept_is_subject_to_mae_carveouts
- maud_additional_matching_rights_period_for_modifications_cor
- maud_change_in_law_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier
- maud_changes_in_gaap_or_other_accounting_principles_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier
- maud_cor_permitted_in_response_to_intervening_event
- maud_fls_mae_standard
- maud_includes_consistent_with_past_practice
- maud_initial_matching_rights_period_cor
- maud_ordinary_course_efforts_standard
- maud_pandemic_or_other_public_health_event_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier
- maud_pandemic_or_other_public_health_event_specific_reference_to_pandemic_related_governmental_responses_or_measures
- maud_type_of_consideration
Task Details
| Task | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| canada_tax_court_outcomes | multiple_choice | INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision... |
| citation_prediction_classification | multiple_choice | Can the case can be used as a citation for the provided text? |
| diversity_3 | multiple_choice | Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defenda... |
| diversity_5 | multiple_choice | Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defenda... |
| diversity_6 | multiple_choice | Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is (1) complete diversity between plaintiffs and defenda... |
| jcrew_blocker | multiple_choice | The JCrew Blocker is a provision that typically includes (1) a prohibition on the borrower from t... |
| learned_hands_benefits | multiple_choice | Does the post discuss public benefits and social services that people can get from the government... |
| maud_ability_to_consummate_concept_is_subject_to_mae_carveouts | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_additional_matching_rights_period_for_modifications_cor | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_change_in_law_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_changes_in_gaap_or_other_accounting_principles_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_cor_permitted_in_response_to_intervening_event | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_fls_mae_standard | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_includes_consistent_with_past_practice | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_initial_matching_rights_period_cor | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_ordinary_course_efforts_standard | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_pandemic_or_other_public_health_event_subject_to_disproportionate_impact_modifier | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_pandemic_or_other_public_health_event_specific_reference_to_pandemic_related_governmental_responses_or_measures | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| maud_type_of_consideration | multiple_choice | Instruction: Read the segment of a merger agreement and answer the multiple-choice question by ch... |
| personal_jurisdiction | multiple_choice | There is personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled, or... |
| sara_entailment | multiple_choice | Determine whether the following statements are entailed under the statute. |
| sara_numeric | regression | Answer the following questions. |
| supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_accountability | multiple_choice | Task involving supply chain disclosures |
| supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_certification | multiple_choice | Task involving supply chain disclosures |
| supply_chain_disclosure_best_practice_training | multiple_choice | Task involving supply chain disclosures |
| telemarketing_sales_rule | multiple_choice | The Telemarketing Sales Rule is provided by 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2). |
Data Format
Each dataset preserves its original columns and adds an input column that contains the formatted prompt ready to be used with language models. The column structure varies by task category:
- Basic Legal Datasets: answer, index, text, input
- Citation Datasets: answer, citation, index, text, input
- Diversity Analysis Datasets: aic_is_met, answer, index, parties_are_diverse, text, input
- Jurisdiction Datasets: answer, index, slice, text, input
- SARA Analysis Datasets: answer, case id, description, index, question, statute, text, input
- Supply Chain Disclosure Datasets: answer, index, text, input
- MAUD Contract Analysis Datasets: answer, index, text, input
Usage
from datasets import load_dataset
# Load a specific task
task = load_dataset("DatologyAI/legalbench", "canada_tax_court_outcomes")
# Access the formatted input
example = task["test"][0]
print(example["input"])
# Access the correct answer
print(example["answer"])
Model Evaluation Example
from datasets import load_dataset
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
# Load model and tokenizer
model_name = "meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-chat-hf"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(model_name)
# Load a LegalBench task
task_name = "personal_jurisdiction"
dataset = load_dataset("DatologyAI/legalbench", task_name)
# Process an example
example = dataset["test"][0]
input_text = example["input"]
# Generate a response
inputs = tokenizer(input_text, return_tensors="pt")
outputs = model.generate(
inputs["input_ids"],
max_new_tokens=10,
temperature=0.0
)
response = tokenizer.decode(outputs[0][inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True)
# Check if correct
print(f"Gold answer: {example['answer']}")
print(f"Model response: {response}")
Citation
If you use this dataset, please cite both this repository and the original LegalBench paper:
@misc{legalbench_datology,
author = {DatologyAI},
title = {Processed LegalBench Dataset},
year = {2024},
publisher = {GitHub},
url = {https://huggingface.co/DatologyAI/legalbench}
}
@article{guha2023legalbench,
title={Legalbench: Foundational models for legal reasoning},
author={Guha, Neel and Gaur, Mayank and Garrido, Georgios and Ji, Fali and Zhang, Spencer and Pathak, Aditi and Arora, Shivam and Teng, Zhaobin and Mao, Chacha and Kornilova, Anastassia and others},
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11462},
year={2023}
}
License
These datasets are derived from LegalBench and follow the same licensing as the original repository.
- Downloads last month
- 92