Smiley v. Holm
E439599
Smiley v. Holm is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of state legislative power over federal election regulations, including the role of gubernatorial vetoes.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Smiley v. Holm canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4428538 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Smiley v. Holm Context triple: [Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, citedInCase, Smiley v. Holm]
-
A.
Hanna v. Plumer
Hanna v. Plumer is a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the Erie doctrine by holding that valid Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern over conflicting state procedural laws in federal diversity actions.
-
B.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
C.
Malloy v. Hogan
Malloy v. Hogan is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Smiley v. Holm Target entity description: Smiley v. Holm is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of state legislative power over federal election regulations, including the role of gubernatorial vetoes.
-
A.
Hanna v. Plumer
Hanna v. Plumer is a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the Erie doctrine by holding that valid Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern over conflicting state procedural laws in federal diversity actions.
-
B.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
C.
Malloy v. Hogan
Malloy v. Hogan is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
election law case ⓘ legal case ⓘ |
| appliesProvision | Article I Section 4 of the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| arisesInState | Minnesota NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| clarifies |
role of gubernatorial veto in federal election regulation laws
ⓘ
scope of state legislative power over federal election regulations ⓘ |
| concerns | Minnesota congressional redistricting plan ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| hasAreaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeAtDecision | Charles Evans Hughes NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 285 U.S. 355 ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1932 ⓘ |
| hasDefendant | Holm NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | United States federal jurisdiction NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasKeyword |
Elections Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
congressional redistricting ⓘ federal election regulation ⓘ gubernatorial veto ⓘ state legislature ⓘ |
| hasLegalPrinciple |
state lawmaking for federal elections must follow state constitutional procedures
ⓘ
the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from normal state constitutional checks ⓘ |
| hasOpinionBy | Charles Evans Hughes NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasOutcome | Minnesota redistricting plan without gubernatorial approval was invalid ⓘ |
| hasPlaintiff | Smiley NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasSubject |
Elections Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
congressional districts ⓘ federal elections ⓘ gubernatorial veto ⓘ redistricting ⓘ state legislative power ⓘ |
| holds |
that a governor’s veto can apply to congressional redistricting legislation
ⓘ
that redistricting for congressional elections is an exercise of lawmaking power ⓘ that state constitutional procedures apply to laws regulating federal elections ⓘ that the word "Legislature" in Article I Section 4 refers to the state’s lawmaking process as a whole ⓘ |
| interprets | the term "Legislature" in Article I Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ |
| isCitedIn |
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Moore v. Harper NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| isPrecedentFor |
cases involving state regulation of federal elections
ⓘ
interpretation of the Elections Clause ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1932 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Smiley v. Holm Description of subject: Smiley v. Holm is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of state legislative power over federal election regulations, including the role of gubernatorial vetoes.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.