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
3likes5.6kdownloads
6766006.json1 linesDownload Raw Back to ri
1"{\"id\": \"6766006\", \"name\": \"Albert F. Cole vs. New England Tree Expert Co., Inc.\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Cole v. New England Tree Expert Co.\", \"decision_date\": \"1932-03-03\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 2483\", \"first_page\": \"228\", \"last_page\": \"229\", \"citations\": \"8 R.I. Dec. 228\", \"volume\": \"8\", \"reporter\": \"Rhode Island Decisions\", \"court\": \"Rhode Island Superior Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Rhode Island\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T02:25:17.277575+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"Albert F. Cole vs. New England Tree Expert Co., Inc.\", \"head_matter\": \"Albert F. Cole vs. New England Tree Expert Co., Inc.\\nNo. 2483.\\nMarch 3, 1932.\", \"word_count\": \"294\", \"char_count\": \"1698\", \"text\": \"CARPENTER, J.\\nAfter verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $515.00, defendant moved for a new trial upon the usual grounds.\\nPlaintiff is the owner and operator of a large dairy and owns and keeps a large herd of dairy cattle in the Town of Warwick near Pawtuxet. The defendant is in the business of spray-\\\" ing trees. On the day in question, the defendant was spraying trees with ar-senate of lead near the pasture in which the cattle of the plaintiff were feeding.\\nThe plaintiff claimed by his evidence that the defendant conducted the spraying negligently, and also contended that defendant should have notified him of said spraying and that by reason of said negligence the spraying mixture, arsenate of lead, blew or fell onto the grass in the pasture of the plaintiff, which grass one of the cows of the plaintiff ate and thereupon became sick and died.\\nProfessor Franklin Strickland examined the grass and found arsenate of lead, and also examined the inwards of the cow and testified that the cow died of lead poisoning.\\nDr. Cole, a veterinary surgeon, testified that the cow died of lead poisoning.\\nThe defendant contended that it was not negligent and that arsenate of lead would not kill a cow.\\nUpon the evidence the jury by their verdict decided that the defendant was negligent and that the cow died as a result of the defendant's negligence, and assessed damages in the sum of $515.00.\\nThis Court feels that the jury were justified in their finding and that substantial justice has been done.\\nFor plaintiff: Joseph W. Grimes, .James O. McManus.\\nFor defendants: Edward W. Lincoln.\\nMotion for new trial denied:\"}"