Datasets:

docketx
/

docketrouter-legal-corpora

slug string	name string	summary string	generally_recognized_elements list	what_decides_these_cases string	common_defenses list
premises-liability	Premises liability	Injuries caused by a dangerous condition on someone else's property.	[ "The defendant owned, occupied or controlled the property", "A dangerous condition existed on it", "The defendant knew or should have known of the condition", "The defendant failed to fix it or warn about it", "The condition caused the plaintiff's injury and damages" ]	The visitor's status is usually the hinge. Courts have traditionally sorted visitors into invitees (there for the owner's benefit — the highest duty), licensees (social guests), and trespassers (the lowest duty), and the duty owed changes with the category. The second hinge is notice: proving the owner knew or should h...	[ "The condition was open and obvious", "The plaintiff's own negligence contributed", "No notice of the condition", "The plaintiff exceeded the scope of the invitation" ]
slip-and-fall	Slip and fall	The most common premises case: a fall caused by a hazard the property owner should have addressed.	[ "A hazardous condition on the property", "Owner knowledge, actual or constructive", "Failure to remedy or warn", "The fall and resulting injury", "Damages" ]	Notice usually decides it. How long was the spill there? Was there an inspection schedule and was it followed? Surveillance video, incident reports, and employee testimony about sweep logs are the evidence that moves these cases.	[ "Open and obvious hazard", "Comparative fault of the plaintiff", "No constructive notice (the hazard was too recent)" ]
negligence	Negligence	The general claim behind most personal-injury cases.	[ "A duty of reasonable care owed to the plaintiff", "Breach of that duty", "The breach caused the injury (both actual and proximate cause)", "Actual damages" ]	Duty and causation. Whether a duty existed is usually a question of law for the judge; whether it was breached and whether the breach caused the harm are usually questions for the jury, decided on expert testimony and the physical evidence.	[ "No duty owed", "No breach — the conduct was reasonable", "Superseding cause", "Comparative or contributory fault" ]
car-accident	Car accident claims	Negligence applied to collisions, plus each state's own insurance framework.	[ "The other driver owed a duty of care", "They breached it (speeding, distraction, failure to yield)", "The breach caused the collision", "Injuries and damages resulted" ]	Liability is usually established through the police report, physical evidence, and witness accounts; damages through medical records and wage documentation. States differ enormously on insurance rules — fault versus no-fault, minimum coverage, and how uninsured-motorist coverage applies — so the insurance framework in ...	[ "Comparative fault", "Pre-existing injuries", "Failure to mitigate damages", "Sudden emergency" ]
medical-malpractice	Medical malpractice	Injury caused by a provider's departure from the accepted standard of care.	[ "A provider-patient relationship existed", "The provider departed from the accepted standard of care", "The departure caused the injury", "Damages resulted" ]	Expert testimony. Nearly every state requires a qualified expert to establish both the standard of care and the departure from it, and many require an expert affidavit or certificate filed early in the case. These are among the most procedurally demanding civil claims.	[ "The care met the standard", "The outcome was a known risk, not negligence", "Causation — the underlying condition caused the harm", "Procedural: expert-report requirements not met" ]
product-liability	Product liability	Harm caused by a defective or unreasonably dangerous product.	[ "The product was defective in design, manufacture, or warning", "The defect existed when it left the defendant's control", "The product was used as intended or foreseeably misused", "The defect caused the injury and damages" ]	Which defect theory applies. Manufacturing defects (this unit was wrong), design defects (every unit is dangerous), and failure-to-warn are proved differently, and many states apply strict liability rather than negligence — meaning fault is not the question, the product's condition is.	[ "Substantial alteration of the product", "Unforeseeable misuse", "State-of-the-art design at the time", "Assumption of risk" ]
dog-bite	Dog bite and animal attacks	Injuries from an animal, under either a strict-liability statute or common-law negligence.	[ "The defendant owned or kept the animal", "The plaintiff was lawfully present", "The animal caused injury", "Damages" ]	Whether the state applies a strict-liability rule or the common-law approach requiring knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensity. That framework difference is the single biggest variable between states.	[ "Provocation", "Trespassing plaintiff", "No prior knowledge of dangerous propensity (in knowledge states)" ]
wrongful-death	Wrongful death	A claim brought by survivors when negligence or a wrongful act caused a death.	[ "A death caused by the defendant's wrongful act or negligence", "Surviving family members or an estate entitled to bring the claim", "Damages to those survivors" ]	Who may sue and what may be recovered — both are set by each state's wrongful-death and survival statutes, and they differ substantially. The underlying liability is proved like the tort it grew from (negligence, malpractice, product defect).	[ "No underlying liability", "Statutory standing — the wrong party filed", "Damages disputes over economic versus non-economic loss" ]
defamation	Defamation, libel and slander	A false statement of fact that damages someone's reputation.	[ "A false statement of fact (not opinion) about the plaintiff", "Published or communicated to a third party", "Fault — at minimum negligence, and actual malice for public figures", "Harm to reputation, or a category where harm is presumed" ]	Fact versus opinion, and the plaintiff's status. Public figures and officials must prove actual malice — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — a constitutional standard that changes these cases fundamentally.	[ "Truth — a complete defense", "Pure opinion", "Privilege (judicial, legislative, fair-report)", "No actual malice where required" ]
assault-battery	Assault and battery (civil)	The civil claims for threatened or actual harmful contact.	[ "An intentional act by the defendant", "Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact (battery) or apprehension of it (assault)", "Contact or apprehension actually resulted", "Damages" ]	Intent and consent. These are intentional torts, so ordinary negligence standards do not apply, and a criminal case arising from the same facts proceeds separately with a different burden of proof.	[ "Consent", "Self-defense or defense of others", "Defense of property (limited)" ]
negligent-security	Negligent security	Injury from a foreseeable crime that reasonable security would have prevented.	[ "The defendant controlled the premises", "Prior similar crimes or circumstances made the harm foreseeable", "Security measures were unreasonable given that foreseeability", "A criminal act caused injury", "Damages" ]	Foreseeability, proved with prior-incident evidence: police call histories for the address, prior crimes on or near the property, and industry security standards for that property type.	[ "The crime was not foreseeable", "Security measures were reasonable", "The criminal act was a superseding cause" ]
nuisance	Nuisance	Unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property.	[ "The plaintiff has an interest in the affected property", "The defendant's conduct interferes with its use and enjoyment", "The interference is substantial and unreasonable", "Resulting harm" ]	Whether the interference is substantial and unreasonable — a balancing of the harm against the utility of the conduct, heavily fact-driven and local.	[ "The use is permitted by zoning or law", "The plaintiff came to the nuisance", "The interference is not substantial" ]
trespass	Trespass to land	Entering or causing something to enter another's property without permission.	[ "The plaintiff possessed the land", "The defendant intentionally entered or caused entry", "Without consent or privilege" ]	Intent to enter, not intent to trespass — a mistaken belief about a boundary is generally no defense. Damages may be nominal, but repeated trespass supports injunctive relief.	[ "Consent or license", "Legal privilege (necessity, easement)", "The plaintiff lacked possessory interest" ]
fraud-misrepresentation	Fraud and misrepresentation	Losses caused by a knowing falsehood relied on to the plaintiff's detriment.	[ "A material false representation", "Knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard", "Intent that the plaintiff rely on it", "Justifiable reliance", "Resulting damages" ]	Reliance and intent, both of which usually require documentary proof. Fraud claims also face heightened pleading standards in most courts: the who, what, when, where and how must be pleaded with particularity.	[ "The statement was opinion or puffery", "No justifiable reliance", "No intent to deceive", "The plaintiff knew the truth" ]
breach-of-contract	Breach of contract	Not a tort, but the claim most often filed alongside them.	[ "A valid contract existed", "The plaintiff performed or was excused", "The defendant breached", "The breach caused damages" ]	What the contract actually says, and whether conditions were satisfied. Written terms usually control over prior conversations, and damages are typically limited to the benefit of the bargain rather than punitive relief.	[ "No enforceable contract", "Performance was excused", "The plaintiff breached first", "Statute of frauds" ]
emotional-distress	Emotional distress claims	Intentional or negligent infliction of severe emotional harm.	[ "Extreme and outrageous conduct (for intentional infliction)", "Intent or recklessness, or negligence with the required relationship or zone of danger", "Severe emotional distress resulted", "Causation" ]	The 'extreme and outrageous' threshold, which courts set deliberately high — insults and indignities are not enough. Negligent infliction is bounded differently in every state, often by physical impact, zone of danger, or bystander rules.	[ "Conduct was not extreme or outrageous", "Distress was not severe", "No qualifying relationship or presence" ]

DocketRouter Legal Corpora

Verbatim, provenance-carrying legal text published by DocketRouter, the legal-grounding API from DocketX, so anyone can build on it. Every row carries its official source URL and retrieval date. The underlying law is public domain (edicts of government); our packaging is released CC0.

Files

file	rows	what it is
`washington-court-rules.jsonl`	1,237	Washington court rules (CR, RAP, ER, GR and more), word for word from courts.wa.gov
`verbatim-rules-corpus.jsonl.gz`	6,093	TX/federal/WA/NY/CA procedural rules and U.S. Code slices, word for word
`washington-rcw.jsonl.gz`	51,174	The Revised Code of Washington, section by section, from app.leg.wa.gov
`claims.jsonl`	16	Every public claim DocketX makes about itself, with the evidence for each

Row schema: docketx record v1 (rules + statutes subsets)

Every law-document row across all docketx datasets uses the same schema — id, doc_type, jurisdiction, title, text, source, license, retrieved_at (required), plus citation, court, date, rule_set, rule_number and an extra object for source-specific fields (chapter, unit, catchline, ...). text is the verbatim text. source is the official page for that exact section. Nothing is summarized, cleaned, or generated. The claims subset is a reference table, not law documents, and keeps its own shape.

Build on it

Free citation existence checking and a metered legal RAG live behind one API: docs
MCP endpoint for Claude/Cursor-class clients: docs/api/mcp
Coverage, counted and dated, as JSON: api/v1/jurisdictions

Load it

from datasets import load_dataset
rcw   = load_dataset("docketx/docketrouter-legal-corpora", "washington-rcw")
rules = load_dataset("docketx/docketrouter-legal-corpora", "verbatim-rules")

Provenance and effective dates

Every row carries its own source URL and retrieved_at timestamp; the table below is the package-level summary.

data	what it is	effective / as-of	retrieved	source of record
`washington-court-rules.jsonl` (1,237 rows)	Washington court rules (CR, RAP, ER, GR, CrR, CRLJ and 27 more sets), verbatim	rules as published by the court on the retrieval date	2026-08-30	courts.wa.gov
`washington-rcw.jsonl.gz` (51,174 rows)	Revised Code of Washington, every section, verbatim	statute text as published by the Legislature on the retrieval date	2026-08-31	app.leg.wa.gov
`verbatim-rules-corpus.jsonl.gz` (6,093 rows)	Court and procedural rules held word for word: Texas Rules of Civil/Appellate Procedure and Evidence, the Federal Rules (FRCP/FRAP/FRE), U.S. Code slices, Washington rule sets, NY CPLR and CA CCP slices	rule text as published by each issuing authority on its retrieval date (per-row `source`/`url`)	2026-08 through 2026-08-31 (per row)	each rule's official publisher, linked per row; per-section source URLs for the U.S. Code and Texas statute slices were derived from the official publishers' canonical URL schemes and live-verified by sample per rule set (every set 5/5 or individually verified) before inclusion
`claims.jsonl` (16 rows)	Every public claim DocketX makes, with its evidence	claims as stated on docketx.ai at generation	2026-09-01	docketx.ai + the public coverage API

Law changes after retrieval. For anything that matters, open the row's source URL and confirm the current text; the official publisher always controls.

Honesty notes

The law changes; check retrieved_at and the source URL before relying on any section. A citation's existence is not proof it is still good law. These corpora are information, not legal advice.

Downloads last month: 119