Update README.md

README.md

@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
 ---
 language:
 - en
-license: apache-2.0
 tags:
 - sentence-transformers
 - sentence-similarity
@@ -11,176 +10,209 @@ tags:
 - loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
 base_model: nomic-ai/modernbert-embed-base
 widget:
-- source_sentence: 'search_document: The first respects the interest in which the
-    litigation is being prosecuted, and the second is the failure of the plaintiff
-    to either plead or prove a cause of action on his behalf as a stockholder. If
-    this litigation had been honestly instituted by a stockholder for the protection
-    of his and other stockholders ’ rights, and was not so evidently a suit instigated
-    by a rival company for its own interests, we should strive to be astute to discover
-    some remedy for a very evident wrong. The far reaching and flexible nature of
-    equitable powers might, with proper proof and under other circumstances, enable
-    us to do justice as between the stockholders of the Grey Creek Company and Chappell,
-    its officer and director. But we have no inclination to struggle for this result,
-    because it is a well settled principle that whenever it is made to appear that
-    the suit was. not begun in good faith by a shareholder for the protection of his
-    rights, but was in reality originated and prosecuted by another corporation for
-    its own benefit, the court will consider what led the plaintiff to institute his
-    suit, and, finding some other reason than a desire to protect stockholders ’ rights,
-    will refuse to entertain the bill. Forrest v. Manchester, etc., R '' way Co.,
-    4 De G., F. & J. 19 ( 65 Eng. Chan., 125 ) ; Filder v. London, etc., R '' way
-    Co., 1 H. & M. 489 ; Belmont v. Erie R '' way Co. et al., 52 Barb. 637 ; Waterbury
-    v. The Merchants ’ Union Express Co., 50 Barb. 157 ; Camblos v. The P. & R. R.
-    R. Co., 4 Brewster, 563. Naturally, the cases respecting this proposition are
-    limited, since the question could not often arise. It seldom happens that shareholders,
-    otherwise than for the protection of their own interests, come into courts of
-    equity to seek redress for wrongs done the corporation of which they are * 331members.
-    But wherever it is apparent that this has been done, the courts have never hesitated
-    to send the plaintiff out of court and refuse him relief.'
+- source_sentence: >-
+    search_document: The first respects the interest in which the litigation is
+    being prosecuted, and the second is the failure of the plaintiff to either
+    plead or prove a cause of action on his behalf as a stockholder. If this
+    litigation had been honestly instituted by a stockholder for the protection
+    of his and other stockholders ’ rights, and was not so evidently a suit
+    instigated by a rival company for its own interests, we should strive to be
+    astute to discover some remedy for a very evident wrong. The far reaching
+    and flexible nature of equitable powers might, with proper proof and under
+    other circumstances, enable us to do justice as between the stockholders of
+    the Grey Creek Company and Chappell, its officer and director. But we have
+    no inclination to struggle for this result, because it is a well settled
+    principle that whenever it is made to appear that the suit was. not begun in
+    good faith by a shareholder for the protection of his rights, but was in
+    reality originated and prosecuted by another corporation for its own
+    benefit, the court will consider what led the plaintiff to institute his
+    suit, and, finding some other reason than a desire to protect stockholders ’
+    rights, will refuse to entertain the bill. Forrest v. Manchester, etc., R '
+    way Co., 4 De G., F. & J. 19 ( 65 Eng. Chan., 125 ) ; Filder v. London,
+    etc., R ' way Co., 1 H. & M. 489 ; Belmont v. Erie R ' way Co. et al., 52
+    Barb. 637 ; Waterbury v. The Merchants ’ Union Express Co., 50 Barb. 157 ;
+    Camblos v. The P. & R. R. R. Co., 4 Brewster, 563. Naturally, the cases
+    respecting this proposition are limited, since the question could not often
+    arise. It seldom happens that shareholders, otherwise than for the
+    protection of their own interests, come into courts of equity to seek
+    redress for wrongs done the corporation of which they are * 331members. But
+    wherever it is apparent that this has been done, the courts have never
+    hesitated to send the plaintiff out of court and refuse him relief.
   sentences:
-  - 'search_query: When can a shareholder''s lawsuit be dismissed for lack of good
-    faith?'
-  - 'search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application in the
-    United States?'
-  - 'search_query: How are disputes over partnership assets and liabilities resolved
-    in court?'
-- source_sentence: 'search_document: It must be conceded that defendant ’ s property
-    within the State is negligible. * 766The salaries of Titus and the other salesman
-    are paid by the defendant ’ s home office. Titus and his associate salesman are
-    employed on a salary basis and devote all their time to the business of the defendant.
-    Titus employs a young woman stenographer and pays her out of the aforementioned
-    “ H. B. Titus, Special ” account. Defendant has no other employees in New York.
-    Titus and his associate are constantly and systematically engaged within the State
-    of New York in soliciting business for the defendant. Their activities result
-    in the continuous shipment by the defendant of its product into and outside of
-    the State of New York. It was testified by Titus that the shipments into this
-    State attain a monthly average of approximately $ 14, 000. Shipments are made
-    in every case from factories without the State “ f. o. b. plant. ” Orders received
-    by Titus from new customers are transmitted to the home office in Cleveland and
-    are there accepted or rejected, presumably after due investigation of the customer
-    ’ s credit standing. In the case of orders received from approved accounts, that
-    is to say, from customers who have previously done business with the defendant
-    and whose credit standing has been found satisfactory by the defendant ’ s home
-    office, and who have thus established a permanent relationship with defendant
-    ’ s New York office, Titus promptly transmits the order to the factory, by means
-    of a teletype machine which the defendant caused to be installed in the 50 Church
-    street office for the use of Titus. This practice is always followed in the case
-    of a rush order from an approved account if the amount of the order is not unusually
-    large ; and the testimony affords some reason to suppose that it is followed in
-    the case of every normal - sized order from such an account. As a general rule,
-    prices are established by the Cleveland office, but Titus was sometimes authorized
-    to quote varying prices in order to meet competition. Orders received on the basis
-    of prices thus quoted by Titus required the approval of the home office, but were,
-    as a matter of fact, in no instance rejected. Defendant ’ s customers in New York
-    make payment directly to the Cleveland office, but when instructed to do so, Titus
-    undertakes the collection of delinquent accounts.'
+  - >-
+    search_query: When can a shareholder's lawsuit be dismissed for lack of good
+    faith?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application in
+    the United States?
+  - >-
+    search_query: How are disputes over partnership assets and liabilities
+    resolved in court?
+- source_sentence: >-
+    search_document: It must be conceded that defendant ’ s property within the
+    State is negligible. * 766The salaries of Titus and the other salesman are
+    paid by the defendant ’ s home office. Titus and his associate salesman are
+    employed on a salary basis and devote all their time to the business of the
+    defendant. Titus employs a young woman stenographer and pays her out of the
+    aforementioned “ H. B. Titus, Special ” account. Defendant has no other
+    employees in New York. Titus and his associate are constantly and
+    systematically engaged within the State of New York in soliciting business
+    for the defendant. Their activities result in the continuous shipment by the
+    defendant of its product into and outside of the State of New York. It was
+    testified by Titus that the shipments into this State attain a monthly
+    average of approximately $ 14, 000. Shipments are made in every case from
+    factories without the State “ f. o. b. plant. ” Orders received by Titus
+    from new customers are transmitted to the home office in Cleveland and are
+    there accepted or rejected, presumably after due investigation of the
+    customer ’ s credit standing. In the case of orders received from approved
+    accounts, that is to say, from customers who have previously done business
+    with the defendant and whose credit standing has been found satisfactory by
+    the defendant ’ s home office, and who have thus established a permanent
+    relationship with defendant ’ s New York office, Titus promptly transmits
+    the order to the factory, by means of a teletype machine which the defendant
+    caused to be installed in the 50 Church street office for the use of Titus.
+    This practice is always followed in the case of a rush order from an
+    approved account if the amount of the order is not unusually large ; and the
+    testimony affords some reason to suppose that it is followed in the case of
+    every normal - sized order from such an account. As a general rule, prices
+    are established by the Cleveland office, but Titus was sometimes authorized
+    to quote varying prices in order to meet competition. Orders received on the
+    basis of prices thus quoted by Titus required the approval of the home
+    office, but were, as a matter of fact, in no instance rejected. Defendant ’
+    s customers in New York make payment directly to the Cleveland office, but
+    when instructed to do so, Titus undertakes the collection of delinquent
+    accounts.
   sentences:
-  - 'search_query: What factors are considered by courts in determining the best interest
-    of a child in custody cases?'
-  - 'search_query: What are the tax implications of freelancing as a sole proprietor?'
-  - 'search_query: What constitutes sufficient business activity for a company to
-    be subject to jurisdiction in a state?'
-- source_sentence: 'search_document: The evil is still just as great as it was formerly,
-    if a party can have only legal or equitable relief in the same action. In such
-    case, if he commences his action asking for equitable relief, as for instance
-    a specific performance, and it turns out that he is not entitled to it, but only
-    to legal relief, by way of damages, he might perhaps, if such strictness is to
-    govern, be put to a new action to obtain redress. This certainly ought not to
-    be ; and such a strictness is hostile to the whole spirit of the change that has
-    been made. In trying such a cause at the circuit, I should most certainly allow
-    whatever amendment in the pleadings was necesssary to give the party redress.
-    If the plaintiff had asked for equitable relief, and it turned out that he was
-    entitled to legal relief only, I should permit him to take it in that form. And
-    if he had asked for legal relief only, Avhen he was entitled to both legal and
-    equitable relief, I should allow the proper amendment to administer complete justice
-    in the case. The power to amend, authorized by the Code, is ample for such purpose.
-    Noav the last case of amendment I have mentioned as permissible at the circuit,
-    is precisely what is claimed in this case, with this difference only, that it
-    is claimed to be made here, before issue joined, and when, of course, the defendant
-    has abundant time and opportunity to prepare to meet the claim at the circuit.
-    I see no objection in this case to uniting claims for both legal and equitable
-    relief in the same action. Both depend on the same transaction and both are necessary
-    to indemnify the plaintiff for past, and to protect him against future injury.
-    I think the proper course, under our present system of practice, is to give the
-    party whatever relief is applicable to the facts put * 271in issue in the pleadings
-    and established on the trial, whether such relief be legal or equitable, or both.
-    And I see no reason against uniting in one action claims for both legal and eqiutable
-    relief, when they are not inconsistent with each other ( Linden agt. Hepburn,
-    5 How. Pr. R. 188 ).'
+  - >-
+    search_query: What factors are considered by courts in determining the best
+    interest of a child in custody cases?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the tax implications of freelancing as a sole
+    proprietor?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What constitutes sufficient business activity for a company to
+    be subject to jurisdiction in a state?
+- source_sentence: >-
+    search_document: The evil is still just as great as it was formerly, if a
+    party can have only legal or equitable relief in the same action. In such
+    case, if he commences his action asking for equitable relief, as for
+    instance a specific performance, and it turns out that he is not entitled to
+    it, but only to legal relief, by way of damages, he might perhaps, if such
+    strictness is to govern, be put to a new action to obtain redress. This
+    certainly ought not to be ; and such a strictness is hostile to the whole
+    spirit of the change that has been made. In trying such a cause at the
+    circuit, I should most certainly allow whatever amendment in the pleadings
+    was necesssary to give the party redress. If the plaintiff had asked for
+    equitable relief, and it turned out that he was entitled to legal relief
+    only, I should permit him to take it in that form. And if he had asked for
+    legal relief only, Avhen he was entitled to both legal and equitable relief,
+    I should allow the proper amendment to administer complete justice in the
+    case. The power to amend, authorized by the Code, is ample for such purpose.
+    Noav the last case of amendment I have mentioned as permissible at the
+    circuit, is precisely what is claimed in this case, with this difference
+    only, that it is claimed to be made here, before issue joined, and when, of
+    course, the defendant has abundant time and opportunity to prepare to meet
+    the claim at the circuit. I see no objection in this case to uniting claims
+    for both legal and equitable relief in the same action. Both depend on the
+    same transaction and both are necessary to indemnify the plaintiff for past,
+    and to protect him against future injury. I think the proper course, under
+    our present system of practice, is to give the party whatever relief is
+    applicable to the facts put * 271in issue in the pleadings and established
+    on the trial, whether such relief be legal or equitable, or both. And I see
+    no reason against uniting in one action claims for both legal and eqiutable
+    relief, when they are not inconsistent with each other ( Linden agt.
+    Hepburn, 5 How. Pr. R. 188 ).
   sentences:
-  - 'search_query: What are the time requirements for challenging a candidate''s qualifications
-    to appear on a ballot in Kentucky?'
-  - 'search_query: Can legal and equitable claims be united in one action under modern
-    legal practice?'
-  - 'search_query: What are the requirements for filing an international patent application?'
-- source_sentence: 'search_document: The major points presented by appellants are,
-    first, that the city of Newark took but an easement in the property, second, that
-    if the city did acquire a fee, it was a conditional, base or determinable fee,
-    and, finally, that in either event the use for which the property was condemned
-    has been abandoned and, in consequence, the property has reverted to the former
-    owner. The city responds that, by virtue of the condemnation proceedings, it acquired
-    an estate in fee - simple absolute, the title to which is not subject to any right
-    of reversion, and, furthermore, that even though the city be found to possess
-    only a qualified fee, it may nevertheless devote the land to the street use. *
-    Page 327 It may be said of a municipality, as it was said of a railroad corporation
-    in Currie v. New York Transit Company and National Docks Railway Co., 66 N. J.
-    Eq. 313, that the quantity of interest in land obtained by it under the power
-    of eminent domain is that which the statute conferring the power authorizes it
-    to acquire and that the legislature may authorize the taking of a fee or any less
-    estate in its discretion. The earlier cases were reviewed by our Chief Justice
-    in the opinion written by him for this court in the Currie case and need not be
-    here adverted to in the continued recognition of the enunciated principle. The
-    next question is : What quantity of interest did the statute which conferred the
-    power of eminent domain authorize the city to acquire? The statute is to be read,
-    not under the necessity of finding fixed phraseology, but to ascertain its intent,
-    because this intent, clearly found, will prevail. No precise words are necessary
-    in a statute to authorize the condemnation of a fee. As was said by Mr. Justice
-    Holmes, then a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in City
-    of Newton v. Perry, 163 Mass. 319 ; 39 N. E. Rep. 1032, " there are no sacramental
-    words which must be used in a statutory power to take and hold lands in order
-    to give a right to take the lands in fee. " See, also, Driscoll v. City of New
-    Haven ( Conn. ), 52 Atl.'
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the time requirements for challenging a candidate's
+    qualifications to appear on a ballot in Kentucky?
+  - >-
+    search_query: Can legal and equitable claims be united in one action under
+    modern legal practice?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the requirements for filing an international patent
+    application?
+- source_sentence: >-
+    search_document: The major points presented by appellants are, first, that
+    the city of Newark took but an easement in the property, second, that if the
+    city did acquire a fee, it was a conditional, base or determinable fee, and,
+    finally, that in either event the use for which the property was condemned
+    has been abandoned and, in consequence, the property has reverted to the
+    former owner. The city responds that, by virtue of the condemnation
+    proceedings, it acquired an estate in fee - simple absolute, the title to
+    which is not subject to any right of reversion, and, furthermore, that even
+    though the city be found to possess only a qualified fee, it may
+    nevertheless devote the land to the street use. * Page 327 It may be said of
+    a municipality, as it was said of a railroad corporation in Currie v. New
+    York Transit Company and National Docks Railway Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 313, that
+    the quantity of interest in land obtained by it under the power of eminent
+    domain is that which the statute conferring the power authorizes it to
+    acquire and that the legislature may authorize the taking of a fee or any
+    less estate in its discretion. The earlier cases were reviewed by our Chief
+    Justice in the opinion written by him for this court in the Currie case and
+    need not be here adverted to in the continued recognition of the enunciated
+    principle. The next question is : What quantity of interest did the statute
+    which conferred the power of eminent domain authorize the city to acquire?
+    The statute is to be read, not under the necessity of finding fixed
+    phraseology, but to ascertain its intent, because this intent, clearly
+    found, will prevail. No precise words are necessary in a statute to
+    authorize the condemnation of a fee. As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes, then
+    a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in City of Newton
+    v. Perry, 163 Mass. 319 ; 39 N. E. Rep. 1032, " there are no sacramental
+    words which must be used in a statutory power to take and hold lands in
+    order to give a right to take the lands in fee. " See, also, Driscoll v.
+    City of New Haven ( Conn. ), 52 Atl.
   sentences:
-  - 'search_query: What legal principles govern equality and uniformity in taxation
-    laws?'
-  - 'search_query: What determines the type of interest a municipality can acquire
-    through eminent domain?'
-  - 'search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application in the
-    United States?'
-- source_sentence: 'search_document: . for one year ” ; this was eventually codified
-    as part of G. L. c. 210, § 3, which also specified other grounds for dispensing
-    with parental consent, such as current imprisonment of the parent for more than
-    three years. Chapter 593, § 1, of the Acts of 1953, codified as G. L. c. 210,
-    § 3A, first provided for an independent proceeding, prior to adoption proceedings
-    proper, at which it could be determined whether parental consent was to be necessary
-    for the adoption. Its purpose was to facilitate and expedite the process of adoption
-    of children being held in temporary foster care. See the Department of Public
-    Welfare recommendations, 1953 House Doc. No. 118, accompanying their draft bill,.
-    1953 House Doc. No. 124. The proceeding could be brought by the Department of
-    Public Welfare or any appropriate child care agency having custody of the child.
-    But the act was silent as to the standards to be applied in deciding when consent
-    could be dispensed with, and in Consent to Adoption of a Minor, 345 Mass. 706
-    ( 1963 ), this court held that, in the absence of any other indication in the
-    statute, the conditions set out in § 3 for direct adoptions were still to be met
-    ; specifically, the court held that a finding of parental “ unsuitability, ” without
-    a finding of * 638wilful desertion or neglect for a year, was not an adequate
-    basis for a decree dispensing with the parental consent. The department had evidently
-    not intended the § 3 conditions to be read into the independent § 3A proceeding.
-    Therefore the department immediately sponsored St. 1964, c. 425, which provided
-    that consent could be dispensed with “ if the court finds that the best interests
-    of the child will be served by placement for adoption ” ; the court was not to
-    be restricted by the § 3 conditions, but was to give “ due regard to the ability,
-    capacity and fitness of the child ’ s parents. . . and to the plans proposed by
-    the department or other agency initiating such petition. ” This statute thus broadened
-    the factors the court could consider in deciding whether to proceed over the parent
-    ’ s objections ; unsuitability besides desertion or neglect was now clearly an
-    available ground.'
+  - >-
+    search_query: What legal principles govern equality and uniformity in
+    taxation laws?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What determines the type of interest a municipality can
+    acquire through eminent domain?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the requirements for filing a patent application in
+    the United States?
+- source_sentence: >-
+    search_document: . for one year ” ; this was eventually codified as part of
+    G. L. c. 210, § 3, which also specified other grounds for dispensing with
+    parental consent, such as current imprisonment of the parent for more than
+    three years. Chapter 593, § 1, of the Acts of 1953, codified as G. L. c.
+    210, § 3A, first provided for an independent proceeding, prior to adoption
+    proceedings proper, at which it could be determined whether parental consent
+    was to be necessary for the adoption. Its purpose was to facilitate and
+    expedite the process of adoption of children being held in temporary foster
+    care. See the Department of Public Welfare recommendations, 1953 House Doc.
+    No. 118, accompanying their draft bill,. 1953 House Doc. No. 124. The
+    proceeding could be brought by the Department of Public Welfare or any
+    appropriate child care agency having custody of the child. But the act was
+    silent as to the standards to be applied in deciding when consent could be
+    dispensed with, and in Consent to Adoption of a Minor, 345 Mass. 706 ( 1963
+    ), this court held that, in the absence of any other indication in the
+    statute, the conditions set out in § 3 for direct adoptions were still to be
+    met ; specifically, the court held that a finding of parental “
+    unsuitability, ” without a finding of * 638wilful desertion or neglect for a
+    year, was not an adequate basis for a decree dispensing with the parental
+    consent. The department had evidently not intended the § 3 conditions to be
+    read into the independent § 3A proceeding. Therefore the department
+    immediately sponsored St. 1964, c. 425, which provided that consent could be
+    dispensed with “ if the court finds that the best interests of the child
+    will be served by placement for adoption ” ; the court was not to be
+    restricted by the § 3 conditions, but was to give “ due regard to the
+    ability, capacity and fitness of the child ’ s parents. . . and to the plans
+    proposed by the department or other agency initiating such petition. ” This
+    statute thus broadened the factors the court could consider in deciding
+    whether to proceed over the parent ’ s objections ; unsuitability besides
+    desertion or neglect was now clearly an available ground.
   sentences:
-  - 'search_query: What are the legal standards for dispensing with parental consent
-    in adoption cases?'
-  - 'search_query: What are the tax implications of inheriting property from a deceased
-    relative?'
-  - 'search_query: What legal remedies are available when surface water drainage causes
-    damage to private property?'
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the legal standards for dispensing with parental
+    consent in adoption cases?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What are the tax implications of inheriting property from a
+    deceased relative?
+  - >-
+    search_query: What legal remedies are available when surface water drainage
+    causes damage to private property?
 pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
 library_name: sentence-transformers
 metrics: