Another way to come up with ex ante arguments is to imagine how a legislature would think about the problem facing the court. Legislatures make general rules for the future; they don’t resolve individual disputes that have already occurred. So if a legislative committee or a government agency were considering a rule about how banks should handle hostage takers, it less likely would be distracted by the equities of any one case. Its role would be to make decisions that have consequences ex ante—going forward.
Source: p 6, The Legal Analyst, Ward Farnsworth
The plural definition here is 2.1, but which doesn't make sense in this context. Since that (independent) clause is discussing "any one case", shouldn't it use the singular of Definition 1 (= The quality of being fair and impartial) ? One case can't be equitable in different ways, then it's not equity?