Computer-based system and method for finding rules of law in text6684202Abstract A system and method for binary classification of text units such as sentences, paragraphs and documents as either a rule of law (ROL) or not a rule of law (.about.ROL). During a training phase of the system and method of the present invention, an initialized knowledge base and labeled or pre-classified sentences are used to build a trained knowledge base. The trained knowledge base contains an equation, a threshold, and a plurality of statistical values called Z values. When inputting text documents for classification, a Z value is generated for each term or token in the input text. The Z values are input to the equation which calculates a score for each sentence. Each calculated score is then compared to the threshold to classify each sentence as either ROL or .about.ROL. Claims What is claimed is: Description BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
TABLE I
OPINION: DECISION & ORDER
<MAJORITY_OPINION>
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated Jun. 10, 1998, which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated Dec. 26, 1997, granting the motion of the defendants Thomas Parisi and Chong Parisi to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them upon its default in opposing the motion, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated Oct. 28, 1998, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination. ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated Jun. 10, 1998, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated Oct. 28, 1998, made upon reargument; and it is further, ORDERED that the order dated Oct. 28, 1998, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs. <ROL>A mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation (see, Copp v Sands Point Marina, 17 NY2d 291, 792, 270 N.Y.S. 2d 599, 217 N.E. 2d 654),</ROL> Here, the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted since the debt which the mortgage secured concededly was satisfied prior to the commencement of the action. The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. BRACKEN, J. P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, J J., concur. </MAJORITY_OPINION> III. Train & Calibrate ROL Recognizer The Train & Calibrate ROL recognizer sub-process 202 of FIG. 2 is set forth in greater detail in FIG. 3. This sub-process begins by inputting a training set of text units 300 that have already been correctly classified as ROL or .about.ROL. An example of a training set is given in Table II.
TABLE II
ID C Sentence
S01 0 The agency denied his applications initially and on
reconsideration.
S02 1 In order for summary judgment to be granted, the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits
must show that there is no genuine issue of material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c).
S03 1 Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) provides that no expert
witness testifying with respect to the mental state
or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may
state an opinion or inference as to whether the
defendant did or did not have the mental state or
condition constituting an element of the crime charged
or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues
are matters for the trier of fact alone.
S04 0 Prior to final agency action, the UMWA may petition
this court to grant additional appropriate relief
in the event MSHA fails to adhere substantially
to a schedule that would, as described in Part
III(C), constitute a good faith effort by MSHA
to come into compliance with the Mine Act. See
Monroe, 840 F.2d at 947; TRAC, 750 F.2d at
80-81; see also Zegeer, 768 F.2d at 1488 ("If
MSHA should fail to act with appropriate diligence in
following the estimates it has tendered to this court,
petitioners may invoke our authority to direct MSHA
to complete the rulemaking process with due dispatch.").
S05 1 A defendant is entitled to the opportunity to present
competent, relevant evidence on the issues being tried.
See United States v. Hamling, 418 U.S. 87, 125, 41
L. Ed. 2d 590, 94 S. Ct. 2887 (1974). The district
court, however, "retains considerable latitude
even with admittedly relevant evidence in rejecting
that which is cumulative . . . " Id. at 127.
S06 0 While the Taxing Authorities may be ready to acknowledge
the precedence of federal bankruptcy law over state
taxing provisions, they argue that the bankruptcy
court in its confirmation order interpreted 11 U.S.C.
Section 1146 (c) too expansively, applying it to
circumstances not covered by the Bankruptcy Code's
exempting provision.
S07 0 The contention that the omission of the Underwriters as
judgment debtors was mere inadvertent clerical error
is further rebutted by the fact that, at the time
judgment was rendered, the Underwriters were not parties
to the litigation and the trial court had no jurisdiction
over them.
S08 1 Causation may be established by obtaining a "judgment,
consent decree or a settlement that `change(s) the
legal relations of the parties such that defendants
are legally compelled to grant relief.`"
Baumgartner v. Harrisburg Hous. Auth., 21 F.3d
541, 546 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Wheeler v. Towanda
Area Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 1991)).
Alternatively, plaintiff may establish causation
through a "catalyst theory," where "even
though the litigation did not result in a favorable
judgment, the pressure of the lawsuit was a material
contributing factor in bringing about extra judicial
relief."
S09 0 FOR THE COURT
S10 1 In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.
Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain
a verdict, is a question of law.
S11 0 Moreover, even these after-the-fact statements reveal
that McClaran believed that R/F was completely
dismissed.
S12 1 It is irrelevant in this matter that the deed to
appellee's chain of title predated that to
the appellants' chain of title. Appellants
must have only "color of title."
S13 1 n2 General Statutes Section 53a-60a provides in
relevant part: "(a) A person is guilty of assault
in the second degree with a firearm when he commits
assault in the second degree as provided in section
53a-60, and in the commission of such offense
he uses or is armed with and threatens the use of or
displays or represents by his words or conduct that
he possesses a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun,
rifle or other firearm.
S14 0 That is the request you made, is that correct, Mr. Tittle?
MR. TITTLE: It is, your Honor.
S15 1 Wolcotts Fin. Serv., Inc. v. McReynolds, 807 S.W.2d 708,
710 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). The basis for the motion
is that the allegations contained in the complaint,
considered alone and taken as true, are insufficient
to state a claim as a matter of law. Shelby County v.
King, 620 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Tenn. 1981); Shipley v.
Knoxville Journal Corp., 670 S.W.2d 222, 223 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 1984).
S16 1 The nature of the liabilities of an accommodation party
is determined by the capacity in which he signed.
Stockwell v. Bloomfield State Bank (1977), 174
Ind.App. 307, 367 N.E.2d 42. An accommodation maker's
basic liability to a holder is identical to any other maker.
S17 0 In Jensen the parties did not seriously contest the nature
of the counterclaim.
S18 0 Subject Matter Jurisdiction
S19 0 At that time the pediatrician's office notified the
Youngs and the Department of Health.
S20 1 Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772,
773 (Tenn. App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73,
74 (Tenn. 1979). Our duty upon review of conflicting
evidence in a jury trial is not to determine where the
truth lies, but only to determine if there was any
material evidence to support the verdict below.
S21 0 Penwell neither performed his affirmative duty under
the policy to file a claim with Western and Southern
for his total disability nor did he pay the premiums
as they fell due, as required by the policy.
S22 0 Kammes saw defendant holding a gun and standing in the
center of the alley near a person who was lying
face down.
S23 1 n9 The administrative review appeals board is established
under City of Waukesha, Wis., Municipal Code, Section
2.11(3) (1995).
S24 0 Appellant asked to get his wallet.
S25 0 Id. at 10-11.
S26 1 n3 It is well established in workers'compensation law
that when a work-related injury aggravates a
pre-existing condition a compensable claim arises.
S27 1 We have previously held that comprehensive general
liability policies cover tortious acts but do not
cover claims for breach of contract.
S28 1 Specific jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over causes
of action arising from or related to a defendant's
actions within the forum state," while "general
jurisdiction . . . refers to the power of a state to
adjudicate any cause of action involving a particular
defendant, regardless of where the cause of action arose."
S29 1 We have previously stated that under Section 1512 the
government must prove that at least one of the law-
enforcement-officer communications which the defendant
sought to prevent would have been with a federal officer,
but the government is not obligated to prove that the
defendant knew or intended anything with respect to this
federal involvement . . . The government may carry this
burden by showing that the conduct which the defendant
believed would be discussed in these communications
constitutes a federal offense, so long as the government
also presents additional appropriate evidence.
S30 0 The United States as well as the State of Alabama was
founded by people who believe in God. I believe this
effort to return voluntary prayer to our public schools
for its return to us to the original position of the
writers of the Constitution, this local philosophies
and beliefs hundreds of Alabamians have urged my
continuous support for permitting school prayer.
This example training set contains 30 sentences that have been randomly selected from a large population of sentences that have been classified as being a rule of law (C=1) or not a rule of law (C=0). Each sentence has an identifier (for reference only), and a classification (C) for class, where class=1 means the sentence is a ROL, and class=0 means the sentence is .about.ROL. "Sentence" is the particular sentence of interest. This example training set is used here to illustrate the processing steps of this invention. When actually applying this invention, however, the sentences of the training set should be randomly selected from a large population of labeled sentences and the number selected should be large enough so that the training set is representative of the whole population. The method of producing the trained knowledge base proceeds by randomly partitioning the inputted training set into two subsets, the regression subset and the calibration subset 301. Whichever subset is selected as the regression subset is used to create a regression equation 302, and the other unselected sentences, which constitute the calibration subset, are used to calculate a threshold 303. More specifically, a random number generator is used to assign a random number between zero (0.0) and one (1.0) to each sentence of the training set. Then, these sentences are numerically sorted by their assigned random number. Finally, the first N% of the sorted sentences become the regression subset and the remaining sentences become the calibration subset. The value of N will vary depending on the size of the training set. Table III is an example of a regression subset taken from the training set of Table II. Table III contains twenty sentences that have been randomly selected from the thirty sentences of Table II. These sentences are used to create Z values for each term or token found therein, as well as a logistic regression equation. As before in Table II, each sentence has an identifier (for reference only), and a classification (C) for class, where class=1 means the sentence is a ROL, and class=0 means the sentence is .about.ROL. "Sentence" is the particular sentence of interest.
TABLE III
ID C Sentences
S02 1 In order for summary judgment to be granted, the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits
must show that there is no genuine issue of material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c).
S03 1 Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) provides that no expert
witness testifying with respect to the mental state
or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may
state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant
did or did not have the mental state or condition
constituting an element of the crime charged or of
a defense thereto.
Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact
alone.
S04 0 Prior to final agency action, the UMWA may petition
this court to grant additional appropriate relief
in the event MSHA fails to adhere substantially to
a schedule that would, as described in Part III(C),
constitute a good faith effort by MSHA to come into
compliance with the Mine Act. See Monroe, 840 F.2d at
947; TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80-81; see also Zegeer,
768 F.2d at 1488 ("If MSHA should fail to act with
appropriate diligence in following the estimates it has
tendered to this court, petitioners may invoke our
authority to direct MSHA to complete the rulemaking
process with due dispatch.").
S05 1 A defendant is entitled to the opportunity to present
competent, relevant evidence on the issues being tried.
See United States v. Hamling, 418 U.S. 87, 125, 41
L. Ed. 2d 590, 94 S. Ct. 2887 (1974). The district
court, however, "retains considerable latitude even
with admittedly relevant evidence in rejecting that
which is cumulative . . . " Id. at 127.
S06 0 While the Taxing Authorities may be ready to
acknowledge the precedence of federal bankruptcy
law over state taxing provisions, they argue that
the bankruptcy court in its confirmation order
interpreted 11 U.S.C. Section 1146 (c) too expansively,
applying it to circumstances not covered by the
Bankruptcy Code's exempting provision.
S08 1 Causation may be established by obtaining a "judgment,
consent decree or a settlement that `change(s) the
legal relations of the parties such that defendants
are legally compelled to grant relief.`"
Baumgartner v. Harrisburg Hous. Auth., 21 F.3d 541,
546 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Wheeler v. Towanda Area Sch.
Dist., 950 F.2d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 1991)). Alternatively,
plaintiff may establish causation through a "catalyst
theory," where "even though the litigation did
not result in a favorable judgment, the pressure of
the lawsuit was a material contributing factor in
bringing about extra judicial relief."
S10 1 In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Whether
the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict,
is a question of law.
S11 0 Moreover, even these after-the-fact statements reveal that
McClaran believed that R/F was completely dismissed.
S12 1 It is irrelevant in this matter that the deed to appellee's
chain of title predated that to the appellants' chain
of title. Appellants must have only "color of title."
S13 1 n2 General Statutes Section 53a-60a provides in relevant
part: "(a) A person is guilty of assault in the second
degree with a firearm when he commits assault in
the second degree as provided in section 53a-60, and
in the commission of such offense he uses or is armed
with and threatens the use of or displays or represents
by his words or conduct that he possesses a pistol,
revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm.
S14 0 That is the request you made, is that correct, Mr. Tittle?
MR. TITTLE: It is, your Honor.
S18 0 Subject Matter Jurisdiction
S19 0 At that time the pediatrician's office notified the Youngs
and the Department of Health.
S20 1 Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772,
773 (Tenn.App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73,
74 (Tenn. 1979). Our duty upon review of conflicting
evidence in a jury trial is not to determine where
the truth lies, but only to determine if there was
any material evidence to support the verdict below.
S21 0 Penwell neither performed his affirmative duty under the
policy to file a claim with Western and Southern for his
total disability nor did he pay the premiums as they fell
due, as required by the policy.
S22 0 Kammes saw defendant holding a gun and standing in the
center of the alley near a person who was lying
face down.
523 1 n9 The administrative review appeals board is established
under City of Waukesha, Wis., Municipal Code,
Section 2.11(3) (1995).
S24 0 Appellant asked to get his wallet.
S26 1 n3 It is well established in workers' compensation law
that when a work-related injury aggravates a pre-
existing condition a compensable claim arises.
S30 0 The United States as well as the State of Alabama was
founded by people who believe in God. I believe this
effort to return voluntary prayer to our public schools
for its return to us to the original position of the
writers of the Constitution, this local philosophies and
beliefs hundreds of Alabamians have urged my continuous
support for permitting school prayer.
Table IV is an example of a calibration subset taken from the same example training set of Table II. Table IV contains ten sentences from the thirty sentences of Table II. These sentences are used to establish a threshold for a logistic regression score resulting from the logistic equation which is used to decide if a sentence is or is not a rule of law. As before in Table II, each sentence has an identifier (for reference only), and a classification (C) for class, where class=1 means the sentence is a ROL, and class=0 means the sentence is .about.ROL. "Sentence" is the particular sentence of interest.
TABLE IV
ID C Sentences
S01 0 The agency denied his applications initially and on
reconsideration.
S07 0 The contention that the omission of the Underwriters as
judgment debtors was mere inadvertent clerical error
is further rebutted by the fact that, at the time
judgment was rendered, the Underwriters were not
parties to the litigation and the trial court had no
jurisdiction over them.
S09 0 FOR THE COURT
S15 1 Wolcotts Fin. Serv., Inc. v. McReynolds, 807 S.W.2d 708,
710 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). The basis for the motion is
that the allegations contained in the complaint,
considered alone and taken as true, are insufficient
to state a claim as a matter of law. Shelby County v.
King, 620 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Tenn. 1981); Shipley v.
Knoxville Journal Corp., 670 S.W.2d 222, 223 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 1984).
S16 1 The nature of the liabilities of an accommodation party
is determined by the capacity in which he signed.
Stockwell v. Bloomfield State Bank (1977), 174
Ind.App. 307, 367 N.E.2d 42. An accommodation maker's
basic liability to a holder is identical to any other maker.
S17 0 In Jensen the parties did not seriously contest the nature of
the counterclaim.
S25 0 Id. at 10-11.
S27 1 We have previously held that comprehensive general
liability policies cover tortious acts but do not
cover claims for breach of contract.
S28 1 Specific jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over causes of
action arising from or related to a defendant's actions
within the forum state," while "general
jurisdiction . . . refers to the power of a state to
adjudicate any cause of action involving a particular
defendant, regardless of where the cause of action arose."
S29 1 We have previously stated that under Section 1512 the
government must prove that at least one of the law-
enforcement-officer communications which the defendant
sought to prevent would have been with a federal officer,
but the government is not obligated to prove that the
defendant knew or intended anything with respect to this
federal involvement . . . The government may carry this
burden by showing that the conduct which the defendant
believed would be discussed in these communications
constitutes a federal offense, so long as the government
also presents additional appropriate evidence.
The above procedure, where the first N% of the sorted sentences become the regression subset and the remaining sentences become the calibration subset, was used to create these subsets where N is 66%, i.e., there are twenty sentences in the regression subset and ten in the calibration subset. The method continues by creating a linear regression equation using the regression subset as input into the sub-process. Z values are generated for all terms and tokens in the text units of the regression subset. Logistic regression is used to develop an equation for scoring text units that might be ROL text units. The equation created by this step 302 for the example regression subset of Table III is equation=0.7549-14.0622*f[1]-14.2148*f[2]-0.0560*f[3]+0.1234*f[4], where f[1] is the average Z value for the sentence, f[2] is the relative size of the sentence, f[3] is the number of terms or tokens in the sentence with negative Z values, and f[4] is the number of terms or tokens in the sentence. The set of Z values calculated for the same example regression subset is given in Table V. Definition of the column headers of Table V is as follows. F0 is the number of times the term or token appears in a class=0 sentence; F1 is the number of times the term or token appears in a class=1 sentence; TP is the total probability of the term or token, i.e., (F0+F1)/(T0+T1); P0 is the probability of the term or token in class=0, i.e., F0/T0; P1 is the probability of the term or token class=1, i.e., F1/T1; Z is the Z value for the term or token, i.e., (P0-P1)/(TP(1-TP) ((1/T0)+(1/T1))).sup.0.5 ; TERM/TOKEN is the term or found in some sentence of the training data.
TABLE V
F0 F1 TP P0 P1 Z TERM/TOKEN
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 11
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 56
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 60
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 60A
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 704
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ABOUT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ACKNOWLEDGE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ACT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ACTION
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ADDITIONAL
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ADEQUACY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ADHERE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ADMINISTRATIVE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ADMISSIONS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ADMITTEDLY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 AFFIDAVITS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 AFFIRMATIVE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 AFTER
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 AGENCY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 AGGRAVATES
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ALABAMA
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ALABAMIANS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ALLEY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ALONE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ALSO
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ALTERNATIVELY
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 AN
4 4 0.01036 0.01286 0.00868 0.56317 AND
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ANSWERS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ANY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 APPEALS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 APPELLANT
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 APPELLANTS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 APPELLEE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 APPLYING
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 APPROPRIATE
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 ARE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ARGUE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ARISES
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ARMED
5 3 0.01036 0.01608 0.00651 1.28778 AS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ASKED
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 ASSAULT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 AT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 AUTHORITIES
3 0 0.00389 0.00965 0.00000 2.11289 BANKRUPTCY
1 2 0.00389 0.00322 0.00434 -0.24597 BE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 BEING
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 BELIEFS
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 BELIEVE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 BELIEVED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 BELOW
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 BOARD
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 BRINGING
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 BUT
4 2 0.00777 0.01286 0.00434 1.32269 BY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CASE
4 6 0.01295 0.01286 0.01302 -0.01849 CASE_CITE_TOK
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CATALYST
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 CAUSATION
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CENTER
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 CHAIN
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CHANGE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CHARGED
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CIRCUMSTANCES
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CITY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CIV
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 CLAIM
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 CODE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COLOR
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 COME
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COMMISSION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COMMITS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COMPELLED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COMPENSABLE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COMPENSATION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 COMPETENT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 COMPLETELY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 COMPLIANCE
0 3 0.00389 0.00000 0.00651 -1.42540 CONDITION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CONDUCT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CONFIRMATION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CONFLICTING
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CONSENT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CONSIDERABLE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CONSTITUTE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CONSTITUTING
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CONSTITUTION
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CONTINUOUS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CONTRIBUTING
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 CORRECT
2 1 0.00389 0.00643 0.00217 0.93346 COURT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 COVERED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CRIME
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CRIMINAL
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 CUMULATIVE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DECREE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DEED
1 3 0.00518 0.00322 0.00651 -0.62490 DEFENDANT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DEFENDANTS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DEFENSE
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 DEGREE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 DEPARTMENT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DEPOSITIONS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 DESCRIBED
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 DETERMINE
1 3 0.00518 0.00322 0.00651 -0.62490 DID
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 DISABILITY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 DISMISSED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DISPLAYS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 DISTRICT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 DOWN
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 DUE
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 DUTY
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 EFFORT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ELEMENT
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 ENTITLED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ESSENCE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ESTABLISH
0 3 0.00389 0.00000 0.00651 -1.42540 ESTABLISHED
1 2 0.00389 0.00322 0.00434 -0.24597 EVEN
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 EVENT
0 6 0.00777 0.00000 0.01302 -2.01976 EVIDENCE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 EXEMPTING
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 EXISTING
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 EXPANSIVELY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 EXPERT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 EXTRAJUDICIAL
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 FACE
1 2 0.00389 0.00322 0.00434 -0.24597 FACT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 FACTOR
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 FAILS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 FAITH
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 FAVORABLE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 FED
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 FEDERAL
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 FELL
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 FILE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 FINAL
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 FIREARM
2 1 0.00389 0.00643 0.00217 0.93346 FIRST_NAME_TOK
3 2 0.00648 0.00965 0.00434 0.90174 FOR
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 FOUNDED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 GENERAL
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 GENUINE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 GET
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 GOD
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 GOOD
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 GRANT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 GRANTED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 GUILTY
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 GUN
1 2 0.00389 0.00322 0.00434 -0.24597 HAVE
1 3 0.00518 0.00322 0.00651 -0.62490 HE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 HEALTH
3 1 0.00518 0.00965 0.00217 1.41926 HIS
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 HOLDING
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 HONOR
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 HOWEVER
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 HUNDREDS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 IF
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 III
5 14 0.02461 0.01608 0.03037 -1.25703 IN
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 INFERENCE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 INJURY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 INTERPRETED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 INTERROGATORIES
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 INTO
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 IRRELEVANT
3 13 0.02073 0.00965 0.02820 -1.77476 IS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 ISSUE
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 ISSUES
2 2 0.00518 0.00643 0.00434 0.39718 IT
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 ITS
0 4 0.00518 0.00000 0.00868 -1.64698 JUDGMENT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 JURISDICTION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 JURY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 KAMMES
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 LATITUDE
1 3 0.00518 0.00322 0.00651 -0.62490 LAW
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 LAWSUIT
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 LEGAL
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 LEGALLY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 LIES
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 LITIGATION
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 LOCAL
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 LYING
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 MACHINE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 MADE
0 3 0.00389 0.00000 0.00651 -1.42540 MATERIAL
1 2 0.00389 0.00322 0.00434 -0.24597 MATTER
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 MATTERS
2 3 0.00648 0.00643 0.00651 -0.01303 MAY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 MCCLARAN
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 MENTAL
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 MINE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 MOREOVER
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 MOVING
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 MR
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 MSHA
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 MUNICIPAL
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 MUST
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 MY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 N2
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 N3
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 N9
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 NEAR
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 NEITHER
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 NO
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 NOR
1 3 0.00518 0.00322 0.00651 -0.62490 NOT
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 NOTIFIED
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 OBTAINING
7 19 0.03368 0.02251 0.04121 -1.41313 OF
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 OFFENSE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 OFFICE
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 ON
0 2 0.00259 0.00000 0.00434 -1.16308 ONLY
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 OPINION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 OPPORTUNITY
0 11 0.01425 0.00000 0.02386 -2.74374 OR
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 ORDER
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 ORIGINAL
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 OTHER
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 OUR
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 OVER
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 PART
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PARTIES
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PARTY
3 8 0.01425 0.00965 0.01735 -0.88624 PARTY_TOK
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PAY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PEDIATRICIAN
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PENWELL
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PEOPLE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PERFORMED
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PERMITTING
1 1 0.00259 0.00322 0.00217 0.28048 PERSON
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PETITION
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PHILOSOPHIES
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PISTOL
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PLAINTIFF
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PLEADINGS
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 POLICY
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 POSITION
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 POSSESSES
2 0 0.00259 0.00643 0.00000 1.72404 PRAYER
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PRE
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PRECEDENCE
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PREDATED
1 0 0.00130 0.00322 0.00000 1.21829 PREMIUMS
0 1 0.00130 0.00000 0.00217 -0.82189 PRESENT
22 29 0.06606 0.07074 0.06291 0.42974 PRESENT_TENSE_
Using the Z values for every term or token found in the text of the regression subset, the equation developed in the previous step, and the calibration subset, a threshold is selected for the score calculated by the equation. The threshold selected for the inputted example training set is given above as part of the trained knowledge base and is `threshold=0.5`. Frequently, the selected threshold will be a value close to 0.5. With reference to FIG. 4, a more rigorous process for assigning a value to the threshold is to generate a score for each sentence of the calibration subset by carrying out a step 404 of applying a linear equation and carrying out a step 405 of applying a sigmoid function. These sentences are sorted and ranked in descending order of their scores, i.e., the largest scores are at the beginning of the sorted list. A score is then selected that best separates the sentences of the calibration subset into ROL (C=1) and .about.ROL (C=0) groups. The more rigorous process shown in FIG. 4 is optional and is performed during development of the trained knowledge base. Table VI shows the results of applying this process to the calibration subset of Table IV. Table VI shows the sentences, i.e. their sentence identifications (SIDs), ordered by their scores, with sentences having the largest scores listed first. Table VI also shows that any score between 0.1866 and 0.97.34 would perfectly separate the calibration subset into ROL and .about.ROL groups. The value selected was 0.5 which is about half way between 0.1866 and 0.9734.
TABLE VI
SID C SCORE
S27 1 0.9999
S16 1 0.9993
S29 1 0.9988
S28 1 0.9977
S15 1 0.9734
S17 0 0.1866
S07 0 0.0034
S01 0 0.0000
S09 0 0.0000
S25 0 0.0000
Scores will not always perfectly separate the ROL sentences from the .about.ROL sentences, that is, sometimes there will be .about.ROL (C=0) sentences with larger scores than ROL (C=1) sentences. When there is not a perfect separation then the best threshold to select depends on how much and what type of error is desirable or tolerable. Below is a representative listing of the contents of the trained knowledge base created by the ROL recognition system when the inputted training set is the example set given above and in Table II. p1 maxsize=200 pasttenseverbs=1 presenttenseverbs=1 pronouns=1 firstnames=1 partynames=1 quotedstrings=1 case_citations=1 statute_citations=1 equation=0.7549-14.0622*f[1]-14.2148*f[2]-0.560*f[3]+0.1234*f[4] threshold=0.5 Z values for each term or token found in the regression set. (Z values for exemplary training set are given in Table V.) where the equation and Z values were created by the step of creating a linear regression equation 302 of the Train & Calibrate ROL recognizer sub-process and the threshold was created by the step of this sub-process for calculating a threshold 303. IV. Find & Mark ROL Text Units in Case Law Documents Once the trained knowledge base has been developed, the Find & Mark ROL text units in the case law documents sub-process can find and mark ROL text units in the inputted case law documents. A selected portion of the inputted case law documents is most generally analyzed and, in the preferred embodiment, this selected portion is the court's Majority Opinion. The Find & Mark ROL text units in case law documents sub-process 205 of FIG. 2 is shown in greater detail in FIG. 4. This sub-process begins with the step 400 of inputting a case law document. To describe this step, reference is made to the short exemplary case law document given in Table I which will be used as an exemplary excerpt of an inputted document. When a case is input to this sub-process it will not have ROL text units marked as shown in Table I. In the preferred embodiment, the Majority Opinion will be marked with sgml tags. The next step 401 is to partition the Majority Opinion into text units. To partition the Majority Opinion, such opinion must first be found and extracted from the case law document. If the sections of the case have been marked using the sgml markup language, then it is easy to find and extract the Majority Opinion. For example, given that the Majority Opinion is enclosed in the following sgml tags: <MAJORITY_OPINION> . . . </MAJORITY_OPINION>, then the following Perl regular expression extracts the Majority Opinion. $opinion=$1 if /<MAJORITY_OPINION>(.+?)</MAJORITY_OPINION>/; The Majority Opinion can be easily partitioned into sentences by assuming a sentence always ends with four lower case letters and a period. The present invention functions effectively even if the partitioning is not perfect. Table VII shows the sentences resulting from partitioning the Majority Opinion of the exemplary input case of, Table I. For each sentence, Table VII provides: a) a sentence identification (SID); b) a classification, either ROL (C=1) or .about.ROL (C=0); and c) the text of the sentence.
TABLE VII
SID C Sentence
A01 0 In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff
appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau
County (Winslow, J.), dated Jun. 10, 1998, which denied
its motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same
court dated Dec. 26, 1997, granting the motion of the
defendants Thomas Parisi and Chong Parisi to dismiss the
complaint insofar as asserted against them upon its default
in opposing the motion, and (2), as limited by its brief,
from so much of an order of the same court, dated
Oct. 28, 1998, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior
determination.
A02 0 ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated
Jun. 10, 1998, is dismissed, as that order was
superseded by the order dated Oct. 28, 1998, made
upon reargument; and it is further, ORDERED that the
order dated Oct. 28, 1998, is affirmed insofar as
appealed from; and it is further, ORDERED that the
respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
A03 1 A mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obliga-
tion and cannot exist independently of the debt or
obligation (see, <CaseCite>Copp v Sands Point
Marina, 17 NY2d 291, 292, 270 N.Y.S.2d 599, 217 N.E.2d
654</CaseCite>).
A04 0 Here, the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly
granted since the debt which the mortgage secured
concededly was satisfied prior to the commencement
of the action.
A05 0 The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
A06 0 BRACKEN, J. P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and
McGINITY, J J., concur.
It is then necessary to carry out the step 402 of inputting, or referencing, a previously-input, trained knowledge base. An exemplary trained knowledge base follows: maxsize=200 pasttenseverbs=1 presenttenseverbs=1 pronouns=1 firstnames=1 partynames=1 quotedstrings=1 case_citations=1 statute_citations=1 equation=0.7549-14.0622*f[1]-14.2148*f[2]-0.0560*f[3]+0.1234*f[4] threshold=0.5 Z values for each term or token found in the regression set. (Z values for exemplary training set are given in Table V.) where the equation and Z values were created by the step 302 of creating a linear regression equation and the threshold was created by the step 303 of calculating a threshold. The next step 403 is to generate features for each text unit. This is accomplished by the sub-process 503 described in connection with FIG. 6. Table VIII enumerates the features of the sentences of the example case of Table I, as partitioned in Table. VII. The features are columns f[1] through f[4].
TABLE VIII
SID f[1] f[2] f[3] f[4] C EResult Score
A01 0.3071 0.5100 25.0000 67.0000 0 -3.9453 0.0190
A02 0.2931 0.3000 11.0000 45.0000 0 -2.6942 0.0633
A03 -0.3278 0.1050 6.0000 14.0000 1 5.2635 0.9948
A04 0.3765 0.1350 5.0000 20.0000 0 -4.2705 0.0138
A05 -0.0054 0.0400 2.0000 4.0000 0 -11.0000 0.0000
A06 0.4965 0.0450 0.0000 2.0000 0 -11.0000 0.0000
As listed in Table VIII, SID is sentence identification, f[1] is the average Z value for the sentence, f[2] is the relative size of the sentence, f[3] is the number of terms or tokens in the sentence with negative Z values, f[4] is the number of terms or tokens in the sentence, C is the expected class of the sentence, EResult is the result of applying the linear equation; and Score is the result of applying the sigmoid function to EResult. The next step 404 is to apply the linear equation created by the sub-process 202, Train & Calibrate ROL Recognizer. The linear equation created by the Train & Calibrate sub-process 202, using the regression set of Table III, is: 0.7549-14.0622*f[1]-14.2148*f[2]-0.0560*f[3]+0.1234*f[4], where the f[1], f[2], f[3], and f[4] are as described in Table VIII. Recall that this equation is part of the trained knowledge base output of step 203. Also, Table VIII gives the result of applying the linear equation to the sentences, i.e., column Eresult. As a single example, substituting into the above equation f[1] through f[4] for sentence A01 gives the following: 0.7549-14.0622*0.3071-14.2148*0.51-0.0560*25+0.1234*67=-3.9453 (i.e., EResult) The next step 405 is to apply sigmoid function. The sigmoid function is e.sup.x /(1+e.sup.x), where x is Eresult. Table VIII gives the result of applying the sigmoid function to sentences, i.e., column Score. For example, if x is the Eresult for sentence A01, (i.e., -3.9453), then e.sup.x is e.sup.-3.9453 =0.019345. So, the sigmoid function is e.sup.x /(1+e.sup.x)=0.019345/(1+0.019345)=0.0190 (i.e., A01's Score). The next step 406 is to select text units that are ROL text units. A text unit is selected as an ROL if its score is greater than the threshold found in the trained knowledge base that resulted from the training process (steps 200-203). For the training set of Table II, the threshold=0.5. Therefore, only sentence A03 of the sentences in Table VIII is an ROL. All other sentences have a score close to 0.0. Finally, in step 407 the method outputs the case law document with ROL text units marked. As previously noted, ROL text units may be marked by enclosing them with the sgml tags: <ROL> . . . </ROL>, or by any other manner of marking as would be known to one of skill in the art. V. Create Linear Regression Equation FIG. 5 is an expansion of the create linear regression equation step 302 of FIG. 3. Input to the sub-process for creating a linear regression equation is the regression set of labeled sentences. Table III shows an example regression set of sentences. The output of this sub-process is a trained knowledge base which contains: a) those things in the initialized knowledge base; b) a list of terms and tokens along with their associated Z values; c) an equation for determining if a sentence is a ROL or .about.ROL; and d) a list of features selected from those provided. The steps for creating the linear regression equation are set forth in FIG. 5. The method begins with the step 500 of getting terms or tokens for each text unit of the regression set. Table IX shows the terms and tokens resulting from this step for the regression set of Table III. The terms and tokens are in the right most column of Table IX. For each sentence of the exemplary regression set of Table III, as set forth in the second column from the right of Table IX, terms and tokens are provided.
TABLE IX
SO -0.4419 0.265 35 53 1 IN ORDER FOR SUMMARY
IN (-1.25703) , ORDER (0.28048), FOR
2 JUDGMENT TO BE GRANTED, THE
(0.90174), SUMMARY (-0.82189), JUDGMENT
PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS,
(-1.64698), TO (0.84800), BE (-0.24597),
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
GRANTED (-0.82189), THE (0.80930), PLEADINGS
AND ADMISSIONS ON FILE,
(-0.82189), DEPOSITIONS (-0.82189), ANSWERS
TOGETHER WITH THE
(-0.82189), TO (0.84800), INTERROGATORIES
AFFIDAVITS MUST SHOW THAT
(-0.82189), AND (0.56317), ADMISSIONS
THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE
(-0.82189), ON (-1.16308), FILE (0.28048)
OF MATERIAL FACT AND THAT
TOGETHER (-0.82189), WITH (-0.63475), THE
THE MOVING PARTY IS
(0.80930), AFFIDAVITS (-0.82189), MUST
ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A
(-1.16308), SHOW (-0.82189), THAT (0.07578),
MATTER OF LAW. FED. R. CIV.
THERE (-1.16308), IS (-1.77476), NO
PRO. 56 (C).
(-1.16308), GENUINE (-0.82189), ISSUE
(-0.82189), OF (-1.41313), MATERIAL (-1.42540),
FACT (-0.24597), AND (0.56317), THAT
(0.07578), THE (0.80930), MOVING (-0.82189),
PARTY (-0.82189), IS (-1.77476), ENTITLED
(-1.16308), TO (0.84800), JUDGMENT (-1.64698),
AS
(1.28778), MATTER (-0.24597), OF
(-1.41313), LAW (-0.62490), FED (-0.82189), CIV
(-0.82189), PRO (-0.82189),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974)
SO -0.7172 0.355 57 71 1 Federal Rule of Evidence
FEDERAL (0.28048), RULE (-0.82189), OF
3 704 (b) provides that no
(-1.41313), EVIDENCE (-2.01976), PROVIDES
expert witness testifying
(-1.16308), THAT (0.07578), NO (-1.16308),
with respect to the mental
EXPERT (-0.82189), WITNESS (-0.82189),
state or condition of a
TESTIFYING (-0.82189), WITH (-0.63475),
defendant in a criminal
RESPECT (-0.82189), TO (0.84800), THE
case may state an opinion
(0.80930), MENTAL (-1.16308), STATE
or inference as to whether
(-0.01303), OR (-2.74374), CONDITION
the defendant did or did
(-1.42540), OF (-1.41313), DEFENDANT
not have the mental state
(-0.62490), IN (-1.25703), CRIMINAL (-0.82189),
or condition constituting
CASE (-0.82189), MAY (-0.01303), STATE
an element of the crime
(-0.01303), AN (-1.16308), OPINION (-0.82189),
charged or of a defense OR
(-2.74374), INFERENCE (-0.82189), AS
thereto. Such ultimate
(1.28778), TO (0.84800), WHETHER (-1.16308),
issues are matters for the
THE (0.80930), DEFENDANT (-0.62490), DID
trier of fact alone.
(-0.62490), OR (-2.74374), DID (-0.62490), NOT
(-0.62490), HAVE (-0.24597), THE (0.80930),
MENTAL (-1.16308), STATE (-0.01303), OR
(-2.74374), CONDITION (-1.42540), CONSTITUTING
(-0.82189), AN (-1.16308), ELEMENT
(-0.82189), OF (-1.41313), THE (0.80930),
CRIME (-0.82189), CHARGED (-0.82189), OR
(-2.74374), OF (-1.41313), DEFENSE (-0.82189),
THERETO (-0.82189), SUCH (-1.42540), ULTIMATE
(-0.82189), ISSUES (-1.16308), ARE
(-1.16308), MATTERS (-0.82189), FOR (0.90174),
THE (0.80930), TRIER (-0.82189), OF
(-1.41313), FACT (-0.24597), ALONE (-0.82189),
PARTY_TOK (-0.88624), PARTY_TOK (-0.88624),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974)
SO 0.8303 0.44 9 63 0 Prior to final agency
PRIOR (1.21829), TO (0.84800), FINAL
4 action, the UMWA may
(1.21829), AGENCY (1.21829), ACTION
petition this court to
(1.21829), THE (0.80930), UMWA (1.21829),
grant additional
MAY (-0.01303), PETITION (1.21829), THIS
appropriate relief in the
(1.41926), COURT (0.93346), TO (0.84800),
event MSHA fails to adhere
GRANT (0.28048), ADDITIONAL (1.21829),
substantially to a
APPROPRIATE (1.21829), RELIEF (-0.24597), IN
schedule that would, as
(-1.25703), THE (0.80930), EVENT (1.21829),
described in Part III (C),
MSHA (1.72404), FAILS (1.21829), TO
constitute a good faith
(0.84800), ADHERE (1.21829), SUBSTANTIALLY
effort by MSHA to come
(1.21829), TO (0.84800), SCHEDULE (1.21829),
into compliance with the
THAT (0.07578), WOULD (1.21829), AS
Mine Act. See Monroe, 840
(1.28778), DESCRIBED (1.21829), IN
F.2d at 947; TRAC, 750
(-1.25703), PART (0.28048), III (1.21829),
F.2d at 80-81; see also
CONSTITUTE (1.21829), GOOD (1.21829), FAITH
Zegeer, 768 F.2d at 1488
(1.21829), EFFORT (1.72404), BY (1.32269),
("If MSHA should fail to
MSHA (1.72404), TO (0.84800), COME
act with appropriate
(1.21829), INTO (1.21829), COMPLIANCE
diligence in following the
(1.21829), WITH (-0.63475), THE (0.80930),
estimates it has tendered
MINE (1.21829), ACT (1.21829), SEE
to this court, petitioners
(0.93346), SEE (0.93346), ALSO (1.21829),
may invoke our authority
QUOTED_STRING_LONG_TOK (-1.18415),
to direct MSHA to complete
PRONOUN_TOK (2.74522), CASE_CITE_TOK
the rulemaking process
(-0.01849), CASE_CITE_TOK (-0.01849),
with due dispatch.").
CASE_CITE_TOK (-0.01849), FIRST_NAME_TOK
(0.93346), PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
FIRST_NAME_TOK (0.93346),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974)
SO -0.5464 0.18 31 42 1 A defendant is entitled to
DEFENDANT (-0.62490), IS (-1.77476), ENTITLED
5 the opportunity to present
(-1.16308), TO (0.84800), THE (0.80930),
competent, relevant
OPPORTUNITY (-0.82189), TO (0.84800),
evidence on the issues
PRESENT (-0.82189), COMPETENT (-0.82189),
being tried. See United
RELEVANT (-1.42540), EVIDENCE (-2.01976), ON
States v. Hamling, 418
(-1.16308), THE (0.80930), ISSUES
U.S. 87, 125, 41 L. Ed. 2d
(-1.16308), BEING (-0.82189), TRIED (-0.82189),
590, 94 S. Ct. 2887
SEE (0.93346), THE (0.80930), DISTRICT
(1974). The district
(-0.82189), COURT (0.93346), HOWEVER
court, however, "retains
(-0.82189), RETAINS (-0.82189), CONSIDERABLE
considerable latitude even
(-0.82189), LATITUDE (-0.82189), EVEN
with admittedly relevant
(-0.24597), WITH (-0.63475), ADMITTEDLY
evidence in rejecting that
(-0.82189), RELEVANT (-1.42540), EVIDENCE
which is cumulative . . ."
(-2.01976), IN (-1.25703), REJECTING
Id. at 127.
(-0.82189), THAT (0.07578), WHICH (-0.82189),
IS
(-1.77476), CUMULATIVE (-0.82189),
QUOTED_STRING_LONG_TOK 1.18415),
CASE_CITE_TOK (-0.01849), CASE_CITE_TOK
(-0.01849), PARTY_TOK (-0.88624),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974)
SO 0.9365 0.23 8 51 0 While the Taxing
WHILE (1.21829), THE (0.80930), TAXING
6 Authorities may be ready
(1.72404), AUTHORITIES (1.21829), MAY
to acknowledge the
(-0.01303), BE (-0.24597), READY (1.21829), TO
precedence of federal
(0.84800), ACKNOWLEDGE (1.21829), THE
bankruptcy law over state
(0.80930), PRECEDENCE (1.21829), OF
taxing provisions, they
(-1.41313), FEDERAL (0.28048), BANKRUPTCY
argue that the bankruptcy
(2.11289), LAW (-0.62490), OVER (1.21829),
court in its confirmation
STATE (-0.01303), TAXING (1.72404),
order interpreted 11
PROVISIONS (1.21829), THEY (1.72404), ARGUE
U.S.C. Section 1146 (c),
(1.21829), THAT (0.07578), THE (0.80930),
too expansively, applying
BANKRUPTCY (2.11289), COURT (0.93346), IN
it to circumstances not
(-1.25703), ITS (1.72404), CONFIRMATION
covered by the Bankruptcy
(1.21829), ORDER (0.28048), INTERPRETED
Code's exempting
(1.21829), TOO (1.21829), EXPANSIVELY
provision.
(1.21829), APPLYING (1.21829), IT (0.39718),
TO
(0.84800), CIRCUMSTANCES (1.21829), NOT
(-0.62490), COVERED (1.21829), BY
(1.32269), THE (0.80930), BANKRUPTCY
(2.11289), CODE (0.28048), EXEMPTING
(1.21829), PROVISION (1.21829), PRONOUN_TOK
(2.74522), PRONOUN_TOK (2.74522),
CASE_CITE_TOK (-0.01849), PRONOUN_TOK
(2.74522), PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974),
PRESENT_TENSE_VERB_TOK (0.42974)
SO -0.5662 0.34 58 74 1 Causation may be
CAUSATION (-1.16308), MAY (-0.01303), BE
8 established by obtaining a
(-0.24597), ESTABLISHED (-1.42540), BY
"judgment, consent decree
(1.32269), OBTAINING (-0.82189), JUDGMENT
or a settlement that
(-1.64698), CONSENT (-0.82189), DECREE
`change (s) the legal
(-0.82189), OR (-2.74374), SETTLEMENT
relations of the parties
(-0.82189), THAT (0.07578), CHANGE (-0.82189),
such that defendants are
THE (0.80930), LEGAL (-0.82189), RELATIONS
leqally compelled to grant
(-0.82189), OF (-1.41313), THE (0.80930),
relief.`"Baumgartner v.
PARTIES (-0.82189), SUCH (-1.42540), THAT
For example, the terms and tokens for sentence S02 are: IN, SUMMARY, JUDGMENT, BE, GRANTED, PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ANSWERS, INTERROGATORIES, ADMISSIONS, ON, TOGETHER, WITH, AFFIDAVITS, MUST, SHOW, THERE, IS, NO, GENUINE, ISSUE, OF, MATERIAL, FACT, MOVING, PARTY, IS, ENTITLED, JUDGMENT, MATTER, OF, LAW, FED, CIV, PRO The classification of the sentence as ROL (class=1) or .about.ROL (class=0) is provided in Table IX at the third column from the right. Next, frequency counts are accumulated by class in step 501. Frequency counts that are accumulated include the total number of term or token occurrences in each class (denoted by Tx where x is either 0 (.about.ROL) or 1 (ROL); and each term or token's number of occurrences in each class, i.e. ROL or .about.ROL. For the example regression set, the total number of terms and tokens in class ROL (i.e., class=1) is T1=461. For class .about.ROL (i.e., class=0), the number is TO=311. The first two columns of the table in Table V give each term or token's frequency count by class for the exemplary regression set of Table III. The first column of Table V gives a term's frequency count in class=0 and the second column gives the term's frequency count for class=1. For example, the word `IS` occurred 3 times in sentences of class=0 and 13 times in sentences of class=1. Similarly, the token, PRONOUN_TOK occurred 14 times in sentences of class=0, and 6 times in sentences of class=1. The Z value is then calculated for each term or token in step 502. The formula for calculating the Z value for a term or token, T, is: Z=(P0-P1)/(TP*(1-TP)(1/T0+1/T1)).sup.0.5, where Px is the probability of term/token T given class x (where x is either 0 or 1). This is equivalent to Fx/Tx, where Fx is the number of occurrences of the term in class x and Tx is the total number of terms and tokens in class x), and TP is the total probability of the term or token, which is (F0+F1)/(T0+T1). Note that in the above formula, since P1 is subtracted from P0, a term/token with a negative Z value favors the ROL class, i.e., the probability of finding the term/token in the ROL class is greater than that of finding it in the .about.ROL class. Likewise, there is a greater probability that a term/token with a positive Z value will be found in distribution class .about.ROL. The theory behind the present invention is that once Z values are calculated for a sampl | ||||||