The material will be added to — and will be searchable through — Ravel's platform, which uses data science, machine learning, and visualization to help people sift quickly through
millions of court opinions.
And what to
make of a court opinion that awards a partial victory to these groups — relying not on a finding of environmental injustice but rather on a determination that the state of California failed to engage in a crucial economic debate about policy alternatives?
Bloomberg Law today is officially announcing the addition to its research platform of the E-Discovery Practice Center, a curated collection of a
range of court opinions, tools, sample forms, news and expert guidance related to both federal and state e-discovery practice.
I believe the oldest computerized
collection of court opinions was the Air Force FLITE database of Supreme Court decisions, which began operating in 1963 and included decisions back to 1937.
CALI's goal in creating FLR, the website says, is «to create a
body of court opinions that is accessible to anyone including educators, librarians, students, lawyers and the public.»
Tjaden also provides a lengthy list of law review articles on the topic, and then moves on to a
list of court opinions dating back to 1909 that support killing off the term «and / or.»
Another interesting feature that is being developed in this beta version of Lawford (but which is working only to a limited extent as of this writing) is
integration of court opinions and legal articles.
An article reports that «Justice Thomas Reflects on Path to the Supreme Court; Speaking in Atlanta, justice discusses early job hunt and how race and expectations affect
perceptions of his Court opinions.»
«As law firms look for ways to be more efficient in their research, this collaboration offers a new and exciting resource for lawyers to quickly sift through
millions of court opinions and find what matters in a centralized location,» said Nik Reed, co-founder and chief operating officer at Ravel Law.
It led to an immediate «spike» in eBook prices (see p. 95
of the Court opinion).