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\": \"1080025\", \"name\": \"Town of Rowley vs. Michael K. Kovalchuk\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Town of Rowley v. Kovalchuk\", \"decision_date\": \"2001-05-10\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"1006\", \"last_page\": \"1006\", \"citations\": \"434 Mass. 1006\", \"volume\": \"434\", \"reporter\": \"Massachusetts Reports\", \"court\": \"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Massachusetts\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T23:29:37.769307+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"Town of Rowley vs. Michael K. Kovalchuk.\", \"head_matter\": \"Town of Rowley vs. Michael K. Kovalchuk.\\nMay 10, 2001.\\nDonald K. Freyleue for the defendant.\\nDonna Gorshel Cohen for the plaintiff.\", \"word_count\": \"174\", \"char_count\": \"1063\", \"text\": \"We granted the defendant's application for further appellate review in this case that was decided in the Appeals Court by an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28. Rowley v. Kovalchuk, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2000). The case involves the lawfulness, under applicable zoning laws and regulations, of the defendant's use of his land for the operation of a sawmill. The case is an appropriate one for summary judgment. The nature of the question in controversy \\u2014 the lawfulness of the use \\u2014 is intensely fact specific. Based on the undisputed material facts set forth by the Superior Court judge in her written memorandum of decision, we agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Appeals Court that the defendant's operation of the sawmill is not lawful as incident to a permitted agricultural use. The permanent injunction barring the defendant from operating a sawmill at the site is affirmed.\\nSo ordered.\"}"