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\": \"7365839\", \"name\": \"Arthur D'AMARIO, III v. LAW FIRM OF TATE & ELIAS et al.\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"D'Amario v. Law Firm of Tate & Elias\", \"decision_date\": \"1993-11-19\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 93-186-Appeal\", \"first_page\": \"270\", \"last_page\": \"270\", \"citations\": \"633 A.2d 270\", \"volume\": \"633\", \"reporter\": \"West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series\", \"court\": \"Supreme Court of Rhode Island\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Rhode Island\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T01:28:33.573515+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"LEDERBERG, J., did not participate.\", \"parties\": \"Arthur D\\u2019AMARIO, III v. LAW FIRM OF TATE & ELIAS et al.\", \"head_matter\": \"Arthur D\\u2019AMARIO, III v. LAW FIRM OF TATE & ELIAS et al.\\nNo. 93-186-Appeal.\\nSupreme Court of Rhode Island.\\nNov. 19, 1993.\\nPlaintiff, pro se.\\nMark Reynolds, John Boland, Robert D\\u2019Amico, Seth Bowerman.\", \"word_count\": \"220\", \"char_count\": \"1391\", \"text\": \"ORDER\\nThis matter came before the Supreme Court on November 1, 1993 pursuant to an order requiring the plaintiff to appear and to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily denied and dismissed..\\nAppearing pro se, plaintiff appeals the denial by a justice of the Superior Court of his motions under Super.R.Civ.P. 15(a) and 60(b). The plaintiff advances several arguments to support his position. They include his assertions that the Superior Court justice abused his discretion in denying his motions, that plaintiff has newly discovered evidence, and that defendants made fraudulent representations upon which his lawyers relied. The plaintiff has not persuaded this court that he has newly discovered evidence or any other reason to justify reversing the Superior Court justice's denial of his motions. After hearing the arguments of counsel and Mr. D'Amario and reviewing the memoranda that the parties submitted (including a twenty-page memorandum of law that Mr. D'Amario filed), it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown.\\nThe plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.\\nLEDERBERG, J., did not participate.\"}"