Triple

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).

Phrase: State Oil Co. v. Khan | Statement: [Albrecht v. Herald Co., overruledBy, State Oil Co. v. Khan]

Target entity: State Oil Co. v. Khan
Context triple: [Albrecht v. Herald Co., overruledBy, State Oil Co. v. Khan]

• A. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
  Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute in human rights lawsuits against corporations for conduct occurring abroad.
• B. Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico
  Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to impose severance taxes on non-Indian companies extracting oil and gas from tribal lands, clarifying limits on the Indian Commerce Clause and state taxation in Indian country.
• C. Doe v. Unocal Corp.
  Doe v. Unocal Corp. is a landmark U.S. human rights lawsuit in which Burmese villagers sued Unocal in federal court for alleged complicity in forced labor and other abuses linked to a gas pipeline project in Myanmar.
• D. Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
  Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate is a landmark 1965 House of Lords decision in UK law concerning compensation for wartime destruction of private property by the Crown and the limits of governmental prerogative powers.
• E. Kivalina v. ExxonMobil
  Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is a landmark U.S. climate change lawsuit in which an Alaskan village sued major energy companies for damages allegedly caused by global warming and resulting coastal erosion.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target entity: State Oil Co. v. Khan
Target entity description: State Oil Co. v. Khan is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust decision that held maximum resale price maintenance is not per se illegal but instead subject to rule-of-reason analysis.

• A. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
  Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute in human rights lawsuits against corporations for conduct occurring abroad.
• B. Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico
  Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to impose severance taxes on non-Indian companies extracting oil and gas from tribal lands, clarifying limits on the Indian Commerce Clause and state taxation in Indian country.
• C. Doe v. Unocal Corp.
  Doe v. Unocal Corp. is a landmark U.S. human rights lawsuit in which Burmese villagers sued Unocal in federal court for alleged complicity in forced labor and other abuses linked to a gas pipeline project in Myanmar.
• D. Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
  Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate is a landmark 1965 House of Lords decision in UK law concerning compensation for wartime destruction of private property by the Crown and the limits of governmental prerogative powers.
• E. Kivalina v. ExxonMobil
  Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is a landmark U.S. climate change lawsuit in which an Alaskan village sued major energy companies for damages allegedly caused by global warming and resulting coastal erosion.
• F. None of above. chosen