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\": \"5315255\", \"name\": \"STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DARRELL M. SHIELDS, Defendant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"State v. Shields\", \"decision_date\": \"1990-12-06\", \"docket_number\": \"NO. 7312\", \"first_page\": \"43\", \"last_page\": \"43\", \"citations\": \"246 Mont. 43\", \"volume\": \"246\", \"reporter\": \"Montana Reports\", \"court\": \"Montana Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Montana\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T00:10:10.224641+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DARRELL M. SHIELDS, Defendant.\", \"head_matter\": \"FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF MISSOULA, JUDICIAL\\nSTATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DARRELL M. SHIELDS, Defendant.\\nNO. 7312 DECISION\\nDATED this 6th day of December, 1990.\", \"word_count\": \"203\", \"char_count\": \"1243\", \"text\": \"On January 29,1990 the Defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years for the Revocation of Assault; with 6 months and 29 days credit for time served.\\nOn December 6, 1990, the Defendant's application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.\\nThe Defendant was present and was represented by Terrance Healow, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.\\nBefore hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.\\nAfter careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence imposed shall remain the same.\\nThe reason for the decision is pursuant to Rule 17 of the Sentence Review Division.\"}"