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: Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) | Statement: [Mapp v. Ohio, overruledPrecedentInPart, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)]

Target entity: Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
Context triple: [Mapp v. Ohio, overruledPrecedentInPart, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)]

• A. Wolf v. Colorado chosen
  Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
• B. United States v. Butler
  United States v. Butler was a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key provisions of the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act as an unconstitutional use of federal taxing and spending power.
• C. Reynolds v. United States
  Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
• D. Katzenbach v. Morgan
  Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
• E. 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.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target predicate: overruledPrecedentInPart
Context triple: [Mapp v. Ohio, overruledPrecedentInPart, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)]

• A. wasOverturnedByCourt
  Indicates that a prior decision, ruling, or judgment was reversed or nullified by a court.
• B. overturnedPractice chosen
  Indicates that a previously established practice, rule, or precedent has been reversed or invalidated by a later decision or action.
• C. precedentChallenged
  Indicates that an existing legal precedent is being questioned, disputed, or formally contested.
• D. upheldBy
  Indicates that one entity is supported, maintained, or validated by another, often through approval, enforcement, or confirmation of its validity.
• E. precedentInterpreted
  Indicates that one legal precedent is interpreted or understood in a particular way, often as clarified or applied in subsequent decisions or analyses.
• F. None of above.