81–90 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was trying to find speeding tickets of John von Neumann, but in vain. It would be nice if one could limit search by years.
Apparently importing a Jaguar through Canada went horribly wrong for him: https://www.judyrecords.com/record/0vctgni5684d
John von Neumann died in 1957. The name is a bit generic, so many results show up. Hence I wished there was a way to limit search to a range of years.
Per my close friend, the value of these (or, why people subscribe to LexisNexis) isn't solely the texts, but the cross referencing. It would be really cool to see that get implemented (and no doubt a non-trivial problem!).
How do you source your case inputs, as it is bigger than PACER?
TIL that I'm cited in a lot of patents.
This is... not great. It's crucial that these records be open to public inspection. But instant full-text search of the entire dockets of 630M cases feels wrong, invasive, and dangerous to me. It's yet another instance of panopticon surveillance now being too cheap to meter. I think our society needs to come to grips with this new reality and figure out what to do about it. Or are we all just cool with this?
This site will be the first stop for anyone wanting to harass another person online. Some times a little friction is a good thing. I love projects like these, but they're the digital equivalent of "dual use technologies". They can be used for good or evil. That said, nice work.
Just anecdotally, I have a fairly uncommon last name but common first name, I know what states/counties I have appeared in court in and couldn't find any of the records. If you search something like the results are overloaded with , for example.
Neat. I'll add this to my sources on case law -- another one I've come across is https://case.law/ Per my close friend, the value of these (or, why people subscribe to LexisNexis) isn't solely the texts, but the cross referencing. It would be really cool to see that get implemented (and no doubt a non-trivial problem!). How do you source your case inputs, as it is bigger than PACER?
For that, you have to detect references of cases which is a difficult problem itself, and CourtListener's search ranking also takes into account the citation weight of certain cases. This generally works well, but my understanding is that sometimes a not-so-important case can end up having many citations. Or if a case with many citations is overturned completely or partially, these things complicate which cases might be most relevant in search results too.
The data source is provided for each case. In some cases, a direct reference/link is provided.
This tool is awesome, but, in knucklehead hands, could be fairly awful.