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.
35.6k
1"{\"id\": \"8864657\", \"name\": \"Parrot & Felth vs. Sam. W. Green\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Parrot v. Green\", \"decision_date\": \"1822-05\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"531\", \"last_page\": \"532\", \"citations\": \"1 McCord 531\", \"volume\": \"12\", \"reporter\": \"South Carolina Law Reports\", \"court\": \"Constitutional Court of South Carolina\", \"jurisdiction\": \"South Carolina\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T00:21:53.304319+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Justices Nott and Gantt, concutred.\", \"parties\": \"Parrot & Felth vs. Sam. W. Green.\", \"head_matter\": \"Parrot & Felth vs. Sam. W. Green.\\nWhere the plaintiff brings two summary processes upon two distinct notes, against the same defendant, the court will not consolidate them if the amount of both notes exceed the summary jurisdiction.\\nTwo summary processes were brought; one on a note for S44 29 1-2 ; the other on a note for t4>7 68 1-4. The defendant moved for an order to consolidate 5 which waft granted.\\nA motion was now submitted to reverse that' order. 1\\n.Noble S\\u00ed Wardlaw, for the motion.\\n-contra.\", \"word_count\": \"230\", \"char_count\": \"1332\", \"text\": \"Mr- Justice Huger\\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\\nIn the case oi the Planters and Mechanics Bank vs. Moses Cohen, (2 Nott & McCord, 440,) it was decided that the court would not grant an order l'or consolidation, unless satisfied that no injury was to result to the plaintiff. In the case bel ore' the court, a consolidation must necessarily produce delay, as the amount of the two notes is beyond the summary jurisdiction of the court, and delay is always such an injury to the party complaining, as should prevent the court from ordering a consolidation.\\nThe motion must therefore be granted.\\nJustices Nott and Gantt, concutred.\"}"