Find research datasets worth reusing

Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.

159

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Dataset results

159 results for “court”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗

zenodo48/100

Access Network of Henri III of France's apartment according to his 1585 court ordinances

This dataset collects the stipulations of access for courtiers in the royal apartment as described in Henri III of France's 1585 court ordinance (Paris: Archives Nationales, KK 544, fol. 55r-141r). The dataset was created with the aim to establish the degree of accessibility of both the (individual) spaces in the royal apartmant as well as the king himself and analyse in which ways king Henri III of France managed to balance his need for privacy with the courtiers' expectations of access. The results are to be / were published in Current Research in Digital History.

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2024View details →

zenodo48/100

Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD)

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Dataset (SCD) provides a record of all 127,477 cases decided by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court between 2007 and December 2024. The SCD includes 31 variables that document basic case information, the court composition, the area of law, information about the appealed judgment, the parties, the case outcome, and about citations and publication status. The dataset can be used as data infrastructure for both qualitative and quantitative analysis of Federal Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is generated using a fully automated pipeline and will be updated regularly to include the latest judgments and possible expansions.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2023View details →

zenodo48/100

Classification of majority opinions and headnotes written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

This is data to accompany an article by Linda L. Berger and Eric C. Nystrom, "A Rhetorical-Computational Analysis of Justice Antonin Scalia's 'Remarkable Influence': The Unexpected Importance of Deceptively Unanimous and Contested Majority Opinions," Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 20, no. 2 (2020). In "scalia-HN-with-ruletype.tsv," Berger classified each headnote from a Scalia-authored majority opinion as one of the following rhetorical types: argument, scalia rule, or preexisting rule. (See article for further explanation of these categories.) Organized by SCDB ID and headnote number. In "unanimity.tsv," Berger addressed each case with a Scalia-authored majority opinion, assessing the degree of unanimity, which may or may not be the same as that implied by the for/against vote in the case. Fields include case SCDB ID, majority-minority vote, and degree of unanimity. Both data files are in Tab-separated format. For further information, please contact the authors.

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2019View details →

zenodo48/100

Case Data Lahore High Court 2013 v1.0

Case-level judicial data from Lahore High Courts extracted from District Judiciary Punjab’s case management system website for the year 2013, to establish a baseline to empirically understand Pakistan’s legal system.  <div> <div>The data repository contains the following files:</div> <ul> <li>raw_data_lahore_highcourt_2013_v1.xlsx: This file contains the raw data extracted from the Punjab High Court website.</li> <li>to_clean_data_lahore_highcourt_2013_v1.do: This file contains the Stata do file used to clean the raw data.</li> <li>stata_cleaned_data_lahore_highcourt_2013_v1.dta: This file contains the cleaned data in Stata format.</li> <li>cleaned_data_lahore_highcourt_2013_v1.csv: This file contains the cleaned data in CSV format. The variable names for cleaned data are human-readable and mostly make clear what information the variable contains. The variables available are as follows: <ul> <li>case_no: Case Number</li> <li>case_status: Case Status</li> <li>inst_no: A unique number representing the case in the system</li> <li>inst_date: Date when the case was officially filed or registered in the court.</li> <li>type_of_case: The type or category of the case (e.g., First Class Cases, Bail Applications).</li> <li>offense: The description of crime or violation for which the case was filed (e.g., Cheating, Rape, etc).</li> <li>procedure_or_documentation: Indicates the type of procedure involved, such as pre-arrest bail or other legal processes.</li> <li>fir_no: The First Information Report (FIR) number associated with the case.</li> <li>fir_year: The year in which the FIR was registered.</li> <li>police_station: The name of the police station where the FIR was lodged.</li> <li>primary_offence: The main crime or charge the case deals with</li> <li>presiding_judge: The name of the judge presiding over the case.</li> <li>bench: The judicial authority or composition of the bench (e.g., Civil Judge or Additional District).</li> <li>decision_date: The date when the court issued a decision or verdict.</li> <li>decision_type: The type of decision made by the court (e.g., Acquittal, Conviction).</li> <li>contested: Indicates whether the case was contested or uncontested.</li> <li>acquitted_convicted: Indicates whether the accused was acquitted or convicted.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>   </div>

opencc-by-nc-4.0Sep 2024View details →

zenodo48/100

Contractual Events in Court Decisions Dataset

A dataset for the task of information extraction, in particular event extraction, in court decisions, focusing on contracts. Our dataset captures contractual relations and events that affect them in some way, such as negotiations preceding a (possible) contract, the execution of a contract, or its termination.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2023View details →

zenodo44/100

Connecting U.S. Supreme Court Case Information and Opinion Authorship (SCDB) to Full Case Text Data (CAP), 1791-2011

This dataset was constructed to connect the rich metadata created by the Supreme Court Database (SCDB) to the Caselaw Access Project (CAP) full-text court opinion data. Since the SCDB includes only substantive opinions, it is necessarily a subset of the full range of opinions available through CAP. There are two parts to this data: the map connecting each SCDB ID to its corresponding CAP case number, and a more advanced (but error-prone) version in which the authorship of each opinion text identified for the case in CAP is attributed to the Justice who wrote it. Each of these data products have been hand-corrected to the best of this author's ability. SCDB-CAP map The SCDB->CAP map began as a relatively straightforward automated matching process, based on the US Reports citation for each case as expressed in both SCDB and CAP. Slightly over 80% of SCDB entries found a single CAP data match this way. From there, the data was entirely hand-corrected, with non-matches or duplicate matches individually investigated and manually corrected. Some SCDB entries simply could not be matched to an appropriate CAP text. Initially, the entirety of US Reports volume 44 was missing, but with the help of CAP staff, the volume was located as having been filed in the New York jurisdiction rather that the United States jurisdiction. The case numbers were then added to the map, but until the volume is relocated to the United States jurisdiction, it may be necessary to also incorporate the New York jurisdiction in full text analysis so that the cases from volume 44 can be searched. 108 more missing cases are from US Reports volume 131, which was a "catch up" volume published in the 19th century. These catch-up cases, many heard by the Supreme Court decades prior, were numbered with lowercase roman numerals instead of the ordinary  numbers, which is almost certainly why CAP's software dismissed the catch-up section as prefatory material. Many of the rest of the errors seem largely to be examples where the SCDB project recognized a separate court action that CAP did not. Perhaps most of these seem to have been later rehearings for a case previously decided, which in the 19th century particularly were commonly reported out at the end of the first decision text. While SCDB sometimes gave these subsequent but related actions a separate SCDB entry, CAP seems to have largely incorporated them as part of the text of the main case. Additionally, there were a few that simply could not be found, despite a careful look through each database as well as the original US Reports and sometimes adjacent volumes. Finally, the cases were only matched up through the 2011 court term. After the 2011 term, the mismatches between CAP and SCDB were extensive and frequently seemed impossible to resolve. Even so, with the manual correction, the overall error rate is low. Of 28,304 cases, only 191 do not have a match, and of those, 108 are contained within the vol. 131 "catch up" volume. Since most of the rest are extremely short subsequent actions that were separately noted by SCDB, the effect of these non-matched cases would seem to be small in most cases. The typical use case would be that the researcher would generate some kind of results based on searching in the CAP full text, then could use the CAP ID to look up the SCDB ID in the map. With the SCDB ID, of course, the rich metadata from the SCDB can then be connected to each result as needed. Opinion authorship Being able to use the rich metadata of SCDB in conjunction with a case's full text is exciting, but it immediately prompts a further question -- what if the texts could be attributed directly to the Justices who authored them? SCDB produces its data in two forms; one is "case centered," where each record represents one case, and the other is "justice centered," in which each record is the vote of one Justice in one case. CAP, in turn, breaks the total text of the case into distinct opinions, and tries to attribute those opinions to their authors by scraping a string of text from the raw input. Therefore, the challenge was to connect these two sources at the opinion level. Connecting the opinions, like connecting the cases, involved an initial match by machines, followed by manual correction and revision. In this case, the scope of the manual effort was much larger than that posed by the case-level connection, and more errors were noted in both SCDB and CAP. The matching process involved a number of steps. First a list of opinions was generated from the CAP data, then matched to SCDB using the SCDB-CAP connector data described above. (Thus, a case without a CAP match in the SCDB-CAP data will not appear in the opinion author data either.) CAP opinions were numbered in the order they were encountered in each CAP case JSON object, and these numbers are used to distinguish the opinions. Next, a round of automatic matching was performed. If there was only one opinion, and only one author listed in the SCDB data, then the majority opinion author (as listed in SCDB) was safely assumed to be the author. If there was no author listed in SCDB, "percuriam" was recorded as the author in this data. If there were exactly two opinions and two authors, the process was also straightforward, as the SCDB-identified majority opinion author was assigned to opinion 1, and the remaining author assigned opinion 2. Subsequently, cases with more than two opinions were processed. A potential match (i.e. a "guess") for each opinion in a given case was created by listing each Justice identified by SCDB as having written an opinion in the case. These guesses were then parsed using a semi-automatic procedure with Levenshtein distance fuzzy name matching. With sufficiently conservative parameters, a successful fuzzy match meant that the non-successful guesses for that opinion could be deleted. These sorted guesses were then reviewed manually. Particular care was also taken for any opinion that contained authored opinions by Justices who had similar names (for example, Clark and Black differ by only a single letter). These sorts of cases, as well as instances of co-authorship, were identified and fixed manually. Those opinions whose authorship could not be matched then were fixed by hand. These included some where the CAP author strings were more complicated than SCDB's strict interpretation; others where the OCR in CAP which contained the Justice name was especially bad; and a number of others where "Mr. Chief Justice" couldn't be directly matched with an author name by the machine. After this light manual correction, almost 500 opinions with substantial errors remained to be individually investigated in depth, by examining the CAP record, the SCDB record, and images of the US Reports for that case. For these last tough customers, errors in the source data were commonly the cause of matching problems. Typically these were of three kinds: examples where CAP should have split the text but didn't (e.g. 2 opinions together in one opinion entry in CAP); examples where SCDB either did not identify or mis-identified an author (such as attributing it to Swayne when it was written by Miller); and examples of non-valid opinions (such as where CAP mistakenly split the opinion too early, leaving an opinion fragment). For these errors, a system of codes was created in the author field to signal the error type so that researchers can be suitably cautious. The error code is always at the beginning of the field and is followed by a comma and the names of each author, separated by a comma with no space to facilitate parsing. Note also that co-authors are listed as comma-separated names in this same field with no error code. Researchers will probably want to disaggregate this field to create duplicate records with each individual author for most purposes. The justice number field also contains information about all justices authoring the opinion but the error codes have been omitted here. <ul> <li>!C -- error: multiple opinion texts combined (i.e. CAP splitting error)</li> <li>!X -- error: unattributed or misattributed opinion (not listed in SCDB as writer)</li> <li>!D -- error: extra opinion that should be deleted, i.e. not a valid opinion</li> <li>!W -- error: listed as Writers by SCDB, but should be co-authors</li> </ul>   Data file structure "scdb_cap-051820.tsv" is a Tab-separated data file containing 5 columns: SCDB ID, CAP ID, US Reports citation, case date, and case name (the latter three from the SCDB data). "scdb-cap-opinion-authorship_051920.tsv" is a Tab-separated data file containing seven columns: SCDB ID, CAP ID, US Reports citation, case name, opinion number in the case, opinion author, and SCDB justice ID. See above for caveats about disaggregating and error codes in fields six and seven. Errors It is likely that errors remain in this data, and it is also hoped that some of the errors beyond the author's immediate control might be fixed in the upstream data so that they can be corrected here. Authors would be grateful for error reports, and also reports of errors fixed, if any.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2020View details →

zenodo44/100

UK asylum court decisions

The dataset includes 35.305 court decisions related to UK asylum requests. The original owner of the data is the UK's Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC). The court decisions were scraped from <a href="https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac">https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac</a> on 28th October 2021.  For each court decision the dataset includes the original text of the court as well as a number of explanatory fields that have been generated following an information extraction process. The dataset includes the following fields: 'Case title:', 'Appellant name:', 'Status of case:', 'Hearing date:', 'Promulgation date:', 'Publication date:', 'Last updated on:', 'Country:', 'Judges:', 'Document', 'Reference', 'Download', 'File', 'String', 'ID', 'Code label:', 'Heard at:', 'Decision:', 'Nationality:', 'Representation:', 'Appellant:', 'Respondent:', 'Decision label:', 'Appellant entity:', 'Respondent entity:', 'Country code', 'Keywords', 'Country guidance:', 'Case Notes:', 'Categories:']

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2020View details →

zenodo44/100

Corpus of Decisions: Permanent Court of International Justice (CD-PCIJ)

Overview The Corpus of Decisions: Permanent Court of International Justice (CD-PCIJ) collects and presents for the first time in human- and machine-readable formats all documents of PCIJ Series A, B and A/B of the <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/en/pcij">Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)</a>. Among these are judgments, advisory opinions, orders, appended minority opinions, annexes, applications instituting proceedings and requests for an advisory opinion. The International Court of Justice, the successor of the PCIJ, has kindly made available these documents <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/en/pcij">on its website</a>. The <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/en/pcij">Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)</a> was the primary judicial organ of the League of Nations, the ill-fated predecessor of the United Nations, which existed from 1920 to 1946. Nonetheless, as the first international court with general thematic jurisdiction, the PCIJ influenced international law in profound ways that are still felt today. Every lawyer who sets out on the path of international law encounters epoch-defining opinions such as the Lotus and Factory at Chorzów decisions, but the Court's lesser-known jurisprudence and the appended minority opinions offer many more ideas and legal principles which are seldom appreciated today. This data set is designed to be complementary to and fully compatible with the <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3826445">Corpus of Decisions: International Court of Justice (CD-ICJ)</a>, which is also available open access.   Citation A peer-reviewed academic paper describing the construction and relevance of the data set entitled <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12313">'Introducing Twin Corpora of Decisions for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)'</a> was published open access in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12313">Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS)</a>. It is also available in print at JELS 2022, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 491-524. If you use the data set for academic work, please cite both the JELS paper and the precise version of the data set you used for your analysis.   NEW in Version 1.1.0 <ul> <li>Full recompilation of data set</li> <li>CHANGELOG and README converted to external markdown files</li> <li>Display of version number on Codebook and Compilation Report title pages fixed; correctly display semantic versioning</li> <li>The ZIP archive of source files includes the TEX files</li> <li>Config file converted to TOML format</li> <li>All R packages are version-controlled with {renv}</li> <li>Data set creation process cleans up all files from previous runs before a new data set is created</li> <li>Remove redundant color from violin plots</li> </ul>   Updates The CD-PCIJ will only be updated if <a href="https://github.com/SeanFobbe/cd-pcij/issues">errors are discovered</a>, enhancements are developed or in the unlikely event that the Court publishes additional documents within the collection ambit of the data set (PCIJ Series A, B and A/B). Notifications regarding new and updated data sets will be published on my academic website at <a href="https://seanfobbe.com/">www.seanfobbe.com</a> or via Mastodon at <a href="https://fediscience.org/@seanfobbe">@seanfobbe@fediscience.org</a>   Recommended Variants <table summary="Recommended variants"> <thead> <tr> <th scope="col">Target Audience</th> <th scope="col">Recommended Variant</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Practitioners</td> <td>PDF_ENHANCED_MajorityOpinions</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Traditional Scholars</td> <td>PDF_ENHANCED_FULL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Quantitative Analysts</td> <td>CSV_TESSERACT_FULL</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>   Please refer to the Codebook regarding the relative merits of each variant. All variants are available in either English or French. Unless you have very specific needs you should only use the variants denoted 'ENHANCED' or 'TESSERACT' for serious work.   Features <ul> <li>Fully compatible with the <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3826445">Corpus of Decisions: International Court of Justice (CD-ICJ)</a></li> <li>29 variables</li> <li>Public Domain (CC-Zero 1.0)</li> <li>Open and platform independent file formats (PDF, TXT, CSV)</li> <li>Extensive Codebook</li> <li><a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7051937/files/CD-PCIJ_1-1-0_CompilationReport.pdf?download=1">Compilation Report</a> explains construction and validation of the data set in detail</li> <li>Large number of diagrams for all purposes (see the 'ANALYSIS' archive)</li> <li>Diagrams are available as PDF (for printing) and PNG (for web display), tables are available as CSV for easy readability by humans and machines</li> <li>Secure cryptographic signatures</li> <li><a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7051937">Publication of full source code (Open Source)</a></li> </ul>   Key Metrics Version: 1.1.0 Temporal Coverage: 22 May 1922 – 26 February 1940 Documents: 259 (English) / 261 (French) Tokens: 1,296,536 (English) / 1,262,184 (French) Formats: PDF, TXT, CSV   Source Code and Compilation Report With every compilation of the full data set an <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7051937/files/CD-PCIJ_1-1-0_CompilationReport.pdf?download=1">extensive Compilation Report</a> is created in a professionally layouted PDF format (comparable to the Codebook). The Compilation Report includes the Source Code, comments and explanations of design decisions, relevant computational results, exact timestamps and a table of contents with clickable internal hyperlinks to each section. The Compilation Report and Source Code are published under the same DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7051937">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7051937</a> For details of the construction and validation of the data set please refer to the Compilation Report.   Disclaimer This data set has been created by Mr Seán Fobbe using documents available on the website of the International Court of Justice (<a href="https://www.icj-cij.org">https://www.icj-cij.org</a>). It is a personal academic initiative and is not associated with or endorsed by the International Court of Justice or the United Nations. The Court accepts no responsibility or liability arising out of my use, or that of third parties, of the documents and information produced, used or published on the Zenodo website. Neither the Court nor its staff members nor its contractors may be held responsible or liable for the consequences, financial or otherwise, resulting from the use of these documents and information.   Academic Publications (Fobbe) Website — <a href="https://www.seanfobbe.com">www.seanfobbe.com</a> Open Data — <a href="https://zenodo.org/communities/sean-fobbe-data/">zenodo.org/communities/sean-fobbe-data</a> Code Repository — <a href="https://zenodo.org/communities/sean-fobbe-code/">zenodo.org/communities/sean-fobbe-code</a> Regular Publications — <a href="https://zenodo.org/communities/sean-fobbe-publications/">zenodo.org/communities/sean-fobbe-publications</a>   Contact Did you discover any errors? Do you have suggestions on how to improve the data set? You can either post these to the <a href="https://github.com/SeanFobbe/cd-pcij/issues">Issue Tracker on GitHub</a> or write me an e-mail at <a href="mailto:fobbe-data@posteo.de">fobbe-data@posteo.de</a>

opencc-zeroFeb 2022View details →

zenodo44/100

Case Data Sindh High Court 2011 v1.0

<div> <div>The case-wise data is extracted during Summer 2023 from the [Sindh High Court website](htts://shc.gov.pk). The dataset contains information on cases filed in the Sindh High Court in 2011. It includes details on case type,  case status, nature of cases, and disposal of cases.</div> <div> </div> <div>Visit https://darlab-pakistan.github.io/pakistan-justice-data/ for a detailed description of data.</div> </div>

opencc-by-nc-4.0Jul 2024View details →

zenodo40/100

The Courtesan and the Memsahib: Khanum Jan Meets Sophia Plowden at the 18C Court of Lucknow

The images that accompany this podcast may be found here: <a href="https://gate.sc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.bl.uk%2Fasian-and-african%2F2018%2F06%2Fsophia-plowden-khanum-jan-and-hindustani-airs.html&token=5591a1-1-1609323947932">blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2…industani-airs.html</a> Khanum Jan was a celebrity courtesan in the cantonment of Kanpur and the court of Asafuddaula of Lucknow in 1780s North India. Famed then for her virtuosic singing, dancing, and speaking eyes, Khanum became famous again in the twentieth century because of her close musical interactions with a remarkable Englishwoman, Sophia Plowden. Through Plowden’s papers and extraordinary collection of Khanum’s repertoire, it is possible to reconstruct songs from the Lucknow court as they may have been performed 200 years ago, in both Indian and European versions. In this podcast, Katherine Butler Schofield tells the story of these two women, and harpsichordist Jane Chapman joins her to perform some of Khanum’s “Hindustani Airs”. The intertwined stories of Khanum and Sophia show that using Indian sources of the time to read between the lines of European papers and collections gives us a much richer view of this sadly short-lived moment of intercultural accord in late Mughal India. This podcast is part of the project Histories of the Ephemeral: Writing on Music in Late Mughal India, sponsored by the British Academy in association with the British Library; additional research was funded by the European Research Council. The Courtesan and the Memsahib was written and performed by me, Katherine Butler Schofield (King's College London), based on my original research, with harpsichordist Jane Chapman <a href="https://gate.sc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.janechapman.com&token=cfdf00-1-1609323947932">www.janechapman.com</a>. It was produced by Chris Elcombe. Additional voices were Georgie Pope, Kanav Gupta, Priyanka Basu, and Michael Bywater. It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC–BY-NC–ND) license. Recordings of vocalists Kesarbai Kerkar and Gangubai Hangal, and sarangi player Hamid Hussain, are courtesy of the Archive of Indian Music and Vikram Sampath: <a href="https://gate.sc?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiveofindianmusic.org%2Fartists%2Fbai-kesarbai-kerkar%2F&token=198e00-1-1609323947932">archiveofindianmusic.org/artists/bai-…rbai-kerkar/</a> ; <a href="https://gate.sc?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiveofindianmusic.org%2Fartists%2Fbai-gangubai-hangal%2F&token=73b01-1-1609323947932">archiveofindianmusic.org/artists/bai-…ubai-hangal/</a> ; <a href="https://gate.sc?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchiveofindianmusic.org%2Fartists%2Fhamid-hussain-a-i-r%2F&token=fe91d1-1-1609323947932">archiveofindianmusic.org/artists/hami…ssain-a-i-r/</a> . Selections from Jane Chapman’s studio recording "The Oriental Miscellany: Airs of Hindustan—William Bird" are found on Signum Classics: I. Ghat; II. Rekhtah: Sakia! Fusul beharust; III. Tuppah: Kia kam keea dil ne? By permission. Image of Khanum Jan illustrating the podcast: <a href="https://gate.sc?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F50%2FColonel_Antoine-Louis_Henri_Polier_watching_a_nautch_at_Faizabad.jpg&token=7a6807-1-1609323947932">upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…t_Faizabad.jpg</a> Santoor and Tabla at Assi Ghat, Varanasi by Samuel Corwin. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence CC BY 4.0 Track 1 by Deep Singh and Ikhlaq Hussain Khan. Originally broadcast live on Rob Weisberg's show, Transpacific Sound Paradise on WFMU. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share-alike 3.0 Licence With thanks to: the British Academy, the British Library, the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, the European Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust, Edinburgh University Library, the Norfolk Records Office, Yousuf Mahmoud, James Kippen, Margaret Walker, Allyn Miner, Richard David Williams, David Lunn, Ursula Sims-Williams, Nick Cook, and Katie de La Matter. For more episodes and information email <a href="mailto:katherine.schofield@kcl.ac.uk">katherine.schofield@kcl.ac.uk</a>.

opencc-by-nc-sa-4.0May 2018View details →

dryad40/100

Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of Court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world

Have perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court polarized, much like the rest of American politics? Because of the Court's unique role, for many years it remained one of the few institutions respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. But the Court's dramatic shift to the right in recent years—highlighted by its Dobbs decision in 2022—potentially upends that logic. Using both 8 waves of panel data and 18 nationally representative surveys spanning two decades, we show that while there was little evidence of partisan polarization in earlier years, in 2022 and 2023, such patterns are clear in favorability, trust, legitimacy, and support for reform. Factors that used to protect the Court—like knowledge about it and support for key democratic values—no longer do so. The Court has also become more important to voters, and will likely remain a political flashpoint, with disquieting implications for the Court's place in our polity.

opencc-zeroJan 2024View details →

dryad40/100

U.S. Appeals and Supreme Court dataset for: Judicial hierarchy and discursive influence

This dataset contains written opinions from the 11 numbered Courts of Appeals and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (not including the Federal Circuit), as well as the SCOTUS. It also contains metadata pertaining to each opinion, such as author, year, etc. It also contains the processed outputs of the rDIM model (Gerow et. al. 2018) pertaining to the experiments performed in our paper. These results contain the assigned influence and topic distribution for each case.

opencc-zeroOct 2023View details →

zenodo40/100