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.
35.6k
1"{\"id\": \"9889186\", \"name\": \"CAPPEL LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. C. BENEDICT, Defendant-Appellee\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Cappel Lumber Co. v. Benedict\", \"decision_date\": \"1958-12-19\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 8945\", \"first_page\": \"270\", \"last_page\": \"271\", \"citations\": \"108 So. 2d 270\", \"volume\": \"108\", \"reporter\": \"Southern Reporter, Second Series\", \"court\": \"Louisiana Court of Appeal\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Louisiana\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T19:49:41.287250+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"CAPPEL LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. C. BENEDICT, Defendant-Appellee.\", \"head_matter\": \"CAPPEL LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. C. BENEDICT, Defendant-Appellee.\\nNo. 8945.\\nCourt of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.\\nDec. 19, 1958.\\nRehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1959.\\nWilliam Ray Bradford, Alexandria, for .appellant.\\nBernard Kramer, Alexandria, for appel-lee.\", \"word_count\": \"203\", \"char_count\": \"1265\", \"text\": \"HARDY, Judge.\\nThis is a suit for the recovery of a balance due on open account, or on a contract of purchase, and plaintiff has appealed from a judgment sustaining defendant's plea of prescription and dismissing plaintiff's suit.\\nReference to plaintiff's petition discloses that, despite an allegation of the sale of materials of a value of $101.14, plaintiff prayed for judgment in the sum of $100 with legal interest and costs, which amount does not confer jurisdiction of this appeal upon this court.\\nThis question has been very recently considered by this court, in Barber v. Hardwick, 107 So.2d 725, in which the law governing appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal was set forth in minute detail, as reflected by the opinion of Judge Gladney.\\nIt is clear that this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, which fact must be noticed, ex proprio motu. Accordingly, It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed at appellant's cost.\"}"