endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON
The Caselaw Access Project In collaboration with Ravel Law, Harvard Law Library digitized over 40 million U.S. court decisions consisting of 6.7 million cases from the last 360 years into a dataset that is widely accessible to use. Access a bulk download of the data through the Caselaw Access Project API (CAPAPI): https://case.law/caselaw/ Find more information about accessing state and federal written court decisions of common law through the bulk data service… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON.
37.2k
1"{\"id\": \"9142455\", \"name\": \"VINTAGE CONTRACTING, L.L.C. and Joseph C. Canizaro v. DIXIE BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY, INC., Maryland Casualty Company and Stiel Insurance Services of New Orleans, Inc.\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Vintage Contracting, L.L.C. v. Dixie Building Material Co.\", \"decision_date\": \"2003-05-30\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 2003-CC-0995\", \"first_page\": \"1052\", \"last_page\": \"1052\", \"citations\": \"845 So. 2d 1052\", \"volume\": \"845\", \"reporter\": \"Southern Reporter, Second Series\", \"court\": \"Louisiana Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Louisiana\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T18:17:05.741091+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"VINTAGE CONTRACTING, L.L.C. and Joseph C. Canizaro v. DIXIE BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY, INC., Maryland Casualty Company and Stiel Insurance Services of New Orleans, Inc..\", \"head_matter\": \"VINTAGE CONTRACTING, L.L.C. and Joseph C. Canizaro v. DIXIE BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY, INC., Maryland Casualty Company and Stiel Insurance Services of New Orleans, Inc..\\nNo. 2003-CC-0995.\\nSupreme Court of Louisiana.\\nMay 30, 2003.\", \"word_count\": \"70\", \"char_count\": \"475\", \"text\": \"In re Stiel Insurance Services of New Orleans Inc..; \\u2014 Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 571-387; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-58.\\nDenied.\"}"