CoolFace
Datasetpublic

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.

sourceHugging Facecc0-1.0updated 2y agoView on Hugging Face
3likes7.2kdownloads
4828730.json1 linesDownload Raw Back to mont
1"{\"id\": \"4828730\", \"name\": \"STATE, Respondent, v. CASSILL, Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"State v. Cassill\", \"decision_date\": \"1925-02-17\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 5,593\", \"first_page\": \"381\", \"last_page\": \"382\", \"citations\": \"72 Mont. 381\", \"volume\": \"72\", \"reporter\": \"Montana Reports\", \"court\": \"Montana Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Montana\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T18:52:15.243484+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"STATE, Respondent, v. CASSILL, Appellant.\", \"head_matter\": \"STATE, Respondent, v. CASSILL, Appellant.\\n(No. 5,593.)\\n(Submitted February 13, 1925.\\nDecided February 17, 1925.)\\n[233 Pac. 908.]\\nCriminal Law \\u2014 Appeal\\u2014Failure to File Brief \\u2014 Affirmance of J udgment.\\n1. Where appellant in a criminal cause fails to file his brief and on the day set for argument no appearance in behalf of either side is made, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.\\nAppeal from District Court, Powell County; George B. Winston, Judge.\\n\\u25a0Scott K. Cassill'was convicted of a violation of the state banking laws, and appeals from the judgment.\\nAffirmed.\", \"word_count\": \"282\", \"char_count\": \"1668\", \"text\": \"OPINION:\\nPER CURIAM.\\n'The transcript in this cause was filed with the clerk of the court on October 23, 1924. On the twenty-third day of January, 1925, the appellant not having filed any brief, the attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal for that reason, basing his motion on paragraphs 4 and 5 of Rule X, rules of this court. However, we decided to hold the motion in abeyance until the time fixed for argument. Thereafter, on January 30, we assigned this cause for argument on February 13, 1925. \\\"When on that day it was called for argument no one appeared for either appellant or respondent, the cause was ordered submitted for decision.\\nSection 12122, Revised Codes of 1921, provides: \\\"The judgment may be affirmed if the appellant fail to appear, but can be reversed only after argument, though the respondent fail to appear.\\\"\\nIf the motion to dismiss the appeal be overruled and the terms of the statute be followed, the judgment must be affirmed.\\nAs the same result will be reached in either case, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.\\nAffirmed.\"}"