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\": \"8714039\", \"name\": \"The STATE, Respondent, v. LeGrant MULLER, Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"State v. Muller\", \"decision_date\": \"1984-05-25\", \"docket_number\": \"22117\", \"first_page\": \"10\", \"last_page\": \"11\", \"citations\": \"282 S.C. 10\", \"volume\": \"282\", \"reporter\": \"South Carolina Reports\", \"court\": \"Supreme Court of South Carolina\", \"jurisdiction\": \"South Carolina\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T22:36:29.792275+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"The STATE, Respondent, v. LeGrant MULLER, Appellant.\", \"head_matter\": \"22117\\nThe STATE, Respondent, v. LeGrant MULLER, Appellant.\\n(316 S. E. (2d) 409)\\nSupreme Court\\nSam R. Haskell and Harry B. Burchstead, Jr., Sumter, for appellant.\\nAtty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and State Attys., Agnes Dale Moore, and Susan A. Lake, Columbia; and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for respondent.\\nMay 25, 1984.\", \"word_count\": \"255\", \"char_count\": \"1544\", \"text\": \"Per Curiam:\\nAppellant was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and of carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to concurrent terms of eight (8) years and one (1) year, respectively. He contends the trial judge erroneously refused to charge the law of self-defense. We agree.\\nOn December 25,1982, appellant and Rowland Tomlin were involved in a shooting incident at the apartment of appellant's ex-wife. At trial, appellant testified he shot Tomlin after Tomlin took out a gun and began shooting at him.\\nThe trial j udge's refusal to charge the law applicable to self-defense was error because appellant's testimony constituted sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that appellant acted in self-defense. State v. Adkinson, 311 S. E. (2d) 79 (1984); State v. Jackson, 227 S. C. 271, 87 S. E. (2d) 681 (1955).\\nAppellant's other exceptions are without merit and are dismissed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.\\nAccordingly, appellant's conviction on the charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is reversed and remanded for a new trial; the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon is affirmed.\"}"