labelling_summarizing/labelling_summarizing.ipynb

{
  "nbformat": 4,
  "nbformat_minor": 0,
  "metadata": {
    "colab": {
      "name": "blame game.ipynb",
      "provenance": [],
      "collapsed_sections": []
    },
    "kernelspec": {
      "name": "python3",
      "display_name": "Python 3"
    }
  },
  "cells": [
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "upRByqJwZYMl"
      },
      "source": [
        "This is a demo of how to analyze a large number of cases without reading them all, using some machine learning to speed up the analysis. Feel free to reuse, modify, or distribute it however you'd like.\n",
        "\n",
        "First, I import some useful Python libraries. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 13,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 34
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "U6lxhViqNyaV",
        "outputId": "b1b3cb32-141f-4197-f881-29d75cfe8fc1"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Requirement already satisfied: wget in /usr/local/lib/python3.6/dist-packages (3.2)\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Imports\n",
        "\n",
        "from collections import Counter\n",
        "from gensim.summarization.summarizer import summarize\n",
        "import json \n",
        "import random \n",
        "import spacy \n",
        "from spacy.util import minibatch, compounding\n",
        "from textwrap import TextWrapper\n",
        "!pip install wget\n",
        "import wget "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "qPQIZ458b1aN"
      },
      "source": [
        "In this demo, I'll explore how cases adjudicating traffic accidents have changed over the years. I am going to compare cases with the terms **proximate cause** and **intersection** in the years 1910-20 and 2008-2018. I chose these terms because they result in a set of cases about accidents at and near intersections where the question of who was responsible is at issue. I wanted to keep the time periods identical but separated by 100 years, but cases after 2018 are sparse in the case.law database, so I've settled for a 98-year separation instead. \n",
        "\n",
        "I have already retrieved these cases from the [case.law API](https://api.case.law/v1/), but if you want to make your own API call to retrieve the cases, you can use the following sample API call: `https://api.case.law/v1/cases/?page_size=10&search=%22proximate+cause%22+intersection&decision_date_min=1910-01-01&decision_date_max=1920-01-01`. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 10,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 34
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "xaaRCdkJgSHe",
        "outputId": "8b4f25fa-4fe1-48ec-e2db-55cf056e1564"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "text/plain": [
              "'cars_cases_json_list_new.json'"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 10,
          "metadata": {
            "tags": []
          },
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Download list of cases from 1910-20\n",
        "old_case_list_file = 'https://ketchupduck.s3.amazonaws.com/cars_cases_json_list_old.json'\n",
        "wget.download(old_case_list_file)\n",
        "\n",
        "# Download list of cases from 2008-18\n",
        "new_case_list_file = 'https://ketchupduck.s3.amazonaws.com/cars_cases_json_list_new.json'\n",
        "wget.download(new_case_list_file)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 12,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 51
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "YXceIZfEVmN4",
        "outputId": "b2c76f24-b6a7-4ebf-bc10-6e11966cadfd"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Number of cases from 1910-20: 596\n",
            "Number of cases from 2008-18: 863\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Load case list into local memory \n",
        "\n",
        "def read_case_list(filename): \n",
        "  with open(filename, 'r') as case_list_file:\n",
        "    return json.load(case_list_file)\n",
        "\n",
        "old_case_list = read_case_list('cars_cases_json_list_old.json')\n",
        "print(f\"Number of cases from 1910-20: {len(old_case_list)}\")\n",
        "new_case_list = read_case_list('cars_cases_json_list_new.json')\n",
        "print(f\"Number of cases from 2008-18: {len(new_case_list)}\")"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "1XJcIZuceeUU"
      },
      "source": [
        "Let's look at what a case in my case list looks like. Notice that I don't have the case text yet, only the case metadata. I didn't want to download the case text for all the cases, only the ones I find interesting, so I'll download the case text for some of these cases later in this file. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 13,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 901
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "J8BVIqw7WUoe",
        "outputId": "dd86d571-88e8-479c-c79e-3be7e20ee808"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "{\n",
            "  \"id\": 1998050,\n",
            "  \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/cases/1998050/\",\n",
            "  \"name\": \"REID WHITELAW, Respondent, v. GIDEON D. McGilliard, Appellant\",\n",
            "  \"name_abbreviation\": \"Whitelaw v. McGilliard\",\n",
            "  \"decision_date\": \"1918-12-04\",\n",
            "  \"docket_number\": \"L. A. No. 4482\",\n",
            "  \"first_page\": \"349\",\n",
            "  \"last_page\": \"353\",\n",
            "  \"citations\": [\n",
            "    {\n",
            "      \"type\": \"official\",\n",
            "      \"cite\": \"179 Cal. 349\"\n",
            "    }\n",
            "  ],\n",
            "  \"volume\": {\n",
            "    \"barcode\": \"32044078594405\",\n",
            "    \"volume_number\": \"179\",\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/volumes/32044078594405/\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"reporter\": {\n",
            "    \"id\": 414,\n",
            "    \"full_name\": \"California Reports\",\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/reporters/414/\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"court\": {\n",
            "    \"name\": \"Supreme Court of California\",\n",
            "    \"slug\": \"cal-1\",\n",
            "    \"id\": 9021,\n",
            "    \"name_abbreviation\": \"Cal.\",\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/courts/cal-1/\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"jurisdiction\": {\n",
            "    \"whitelisted\": false,\n",
            "    \"name\": \"Cal.\",\n",
            "    \"slug\": \"cal\",\n",
            "    \"id\": 30,\n",
            "    \"name_long\": \"California\",\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/jurisdictions/cal/\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"frontend_url\": \"https://cite.case.law/cal/179/349/\",\n",
            "  \"preview\": [\n",
            "    \"The accident occurred at the <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em> of Broadway and Temple Street, in the city of Los Angeles.\",\n",
            "    \"the east side of Broadway, and he did not modify the speed of the motor vehicle as he approached the <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em>\",\n",
            "    \"The two vehicles came into collision east of the central point of the <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em> of the two streets\",\n",
            "    \"(Anything over ten miles an hour at such an <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em> was contrary to ordinance.)\",\n",
            "    \"The motorcycle was, at the time I first saw it, about the same distance beyond the <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em> of Temple\",\n",
            "    \"\\u2014Proximate Cause op Injury \\u2014 Failure to Slow Down in Approaching Street <em class='search_highlight'>Intersection</em>.\",\n",
            "    \"for personal injuries received by a rider of a motorcycle in a collision with an automobile at the <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em>\",\n",
            "    \"was going at an unlawful rate of speed and did not slow down as required by law in approaching the <em class='search_highlight'>intersection</em>\"\n",
            "  ]\n",
            "}\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "print(json.dumps(old_case_list[0], indent=2))"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "O1R3zaDWe7ie"
      },
      "source": [
        "I am curious about who the parties in each case are. The `spacy` library has the capability to find and label people, organizations, and geopolitical entities, so let's use that to find and label the case parties here. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 0,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {},
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "basd_vcBe3ly"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "# Function to assign and print spacy labels \n",
        "def print_labels_check(cases, model, start_idx, end_idx):\n",
        "  for case in cases[start_idx:end_idx]: \n",
        "    case_name = case['name']\n",
        "    parsed_case_name = model(case_name) \n",
        "    print(case_name)\n",
        "    for ent in parsed_case_name.ents:\n",
        "      print(\"   \", ent.text, ent.label_)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 16,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 1000
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "-dPB_6Lmj5MG",
        "outputId": "2162c417-e7e0-46a8-b53b-1e2a47a639f4"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent; Linda M. Brown, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent\n",
            "    Linda M. Brown PERSON\n",
            "    Administratrix PERSON\n",
            "    Deceased PERSON\n",
            "    State ORG\n",
            "    New York GPE\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    Linda M. Brown PERSON\n",
            "    Appellant PERSON\n",
            "    State ORG\n",
            "    New York GPE\n",
            "James M. McILROY v. GIBSON’S APPLE ORCHARD\n",
            "    James M. McILROY PERSON\n",
            "    GIBSON ORG\n",
            "BENNETT v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JOHNSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\n",
            "    BENNETT ORG\n",
            "    GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ORG\n",
            "    JOHNSON ORG\n",
            "    GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ORG\n",
            "Kevin Chang, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant\n",
            "    Kevin Chang PERSON\n",
            "    Appellant PERSON\n",
            "    New York GPE\n",
            "Kristy HUMPHERY as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Mandrell, Jr., Appellant-Plaintiff, v. DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC., Appellee-Defendant\n",
            "    Kristy HUMPHERY PERSON\n",
            "    the Estate of Charles Mandrell ORG\n",
            "    Jr. PERSON\n",
            "    Appellant-Plaintiff PERSON\n",
            "    INC ORG\n",
            "HAYES et al. v. CRAWFORD\n",
            "Joel Kim et al., Appellants, v. Carlos F. Acosta, Respondent\n",
            "    Joel Kim et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "    Carlos F. Acosta PERSON\n",
            "Debra Watson, Respondent, v. Jade Luxury Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants\n",
            "    Debra Watson PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    Jade Luxury Transportation Corp. ORG\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "Darlene Todd, Respondent, v. PLSIII, LLC—We Care et al., Appellants and Oscar Hasley, Jr., Respondent. (Action No. 1.); Oscar Hasley, Jr., Respondent, v. PLSIII, LLC—We Care et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)\n",
            "    Darlene Todd PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    PLSIII ORG\n",
            "    LLC ORG\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "    Oscar Hasley PERSON\n",
            "    Jr. PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    1 CARDINAL\n",
            "    Oscar Hasley PERSON\n",
            "    Jr. PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    PLSIII ORG\n",
            "    LLC ORG\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "    2 CARDINAL\n",
            "Glen FLETCHER, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Lucille Fletcher; Lucy Fletcher, Plaintiffs, v. PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Yum! Brands, Incorporated, Defendant\n",
            "    Glen FLETCHER PERSON\n",
            "    Plaintiff—Appellant ORG\n",
            "    Lucille Fletcher PERSON\n",
            "    Lucy Fletcher PERSON\n",
            "    PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA ORG\n",
            "    INCORPORATED ORG\n",
            "    Defendant—Appellee ORG\n",
            "    Yum PERSON\n",
            "    Incorporated ORG\n",
            "Peter Poveromo et al., Respondents, v. Town of Cortlandt et al., Appellants\n",
            "    Peter Poveromo et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Respondents ORG\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OCTAVIUS L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant\n",
            "    Plaintiff-Appellee ORG\n",
            "    OCTAVIUS L. JOHNSON PERSON\n",
            "Antoinette McIntosh, an Incapacitated Person, by Her Guardian, Andrea Martin, et al., Appellants, v. Village of Freeport, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)\n",
            "    Antoinette McIntosh PERSON\n",
            "    Incapacitated Person PERSON\n",
            "    Andrea Martin PERSON\n",
            "    et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    Defendants ORG\n",
            "    Third-Party Action ORG\n",
            "Michelle R. Bailey et al., Respondents, v. County of Tioga et al., Appellants\n",
            "    Michelle R. Bailey et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Respondents ORG\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "Susan M. Coffed, as Administrator of the Estate of James B. Coffed, Deceased, Respondent, v. John N. McCarthy et al., Appellants\n",
            "    Susan M. Coffed PERSON\n",
            "    James B. Coffed PERSON\n",
            "    Deceased GPE\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    John N. McCarthy et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "Rolf Ohlhausen, Respondent, v. City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Transit Authority, Appellant\n",
            "    Rolf Ohlhausen PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    New York GPE\n",
            "    Defendants ORG\n",
            "    New York City Transit Authority ORG\n",
            "Marlyn Przesiek et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant\n",
            "    Marlyn Przesiek et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Respondents ORG\n",
            "    State ORG\n",
            "    New York GPE\n",
            "Lori Noller et al., Appellants, v. Miguel Peralta et al., Defendants, and Town of Cornwall, Respondent\n",
            "    Lori Noller et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Appellants PERSON\n",
            "    Miguel Peralta et al. PERSON\n",
            "    Defendants ORG\n",
            "    Town of Cornwall ORG\n",
            "SMITH v. THE STATE\n",
            "    SMITH ORG\n",
            "Nathaniel Martinez, Respondent, v. Dwight Wascom, Appellant\n",
            "    Nathaniel Martinez PERSON\n",
            "    Respondent GPE\n",
            "    Dwight Wascom ORG\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "nlp = spacy.load('en_core_web_sm')\n",
        "print_labels_check(new_case_list, nlp, 0, 20)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "Qrbi-i1hg7Mg"
      },
      "source": [
        "Alright, so above is what `spacy` gave me. This is a good start, but it is clear that there are many errors in the data. For example, look at this set of labels: \n",
        "```\n",
        "Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent; Linda M. Brown, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent\n",
        "    Linda M. Brown PERSON\n",
        "    Administratrix PERSON\n",
        "    Deceased PERSON\n",
        "    State ORG\n",
        "    New York GPE\n",
        "    Respondent GPE\n",
        "    Linda M. Brown PERSON\n",
        "    Appellant PERSON\n",
        "    State ORG\n",
        "    New York GPE\n",
        "```\n",
        "`spacy` thinks that \"Administratrix\" and \"Appellant\" are people, while I know that these are just roles that people assume when in court. `spacy` also labelled \"State\" as an organization and \"New York\" as a geopolitical entity, but \"State of New York\" should have been labelled together as a geopolitical entity. \n",
        "\n",
        "`spacy` was trained on Wikipedia pages, so the errors mainly stem from the fact that it has not seen many legal case names before, and so does not have a good idea of how to handle them. I need to train `spacy` with case names so it knows how to better handle them. For example, for the above case name, I will tell `spacy` that the correct labelling is: \n",
        "```python\n",
        "(\n",
        "  # First, tell spacy the case name \n",
        "  \"Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent; Linda M. Brown, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent\", \n",
        "  # Then, tell spacy the entities in the case \n",
        "  {\"entities\": [\n",
        "    # Linda M. Brown (characters 0 to 14 in the case name) is a person \n",
        "    (0, 14, \"PERSON\"), \n",
        "    # Wayne Brown (characters 51 to 62 in the case name) is a person \n",
        "    (51, 51+11, \"PERSON\"), \n",
        "    # State of New York is a geopolitical entity\n",
        "    (88, 88+17, \"GPE\"), \n",
        "    # Linda M. Brown, again, is a person\n",
        "    (119, 119+14, \"PERSON\"),\n",
        "    # State of New York, again is a geopolitical entity \n",
        "    (149, 149+17, \"GPE\")\n",
        "  ]}\n",
        "),\n",
        "\n",
        "```\n",
        "\n",
        "Below is a list of the correct labels for several cases. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 0,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {},
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "HCbGaqQ2qrth"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "# Training data\n",
        "TRAIN_DATA = [\n",
        "    (\"N. R. Walters et al., Respondents, v. The City of Seattle, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 13, \"PERSON\"), (38, 38+19, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Fannie Cusick, Appellee, v. W. F. Miller, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 13, \"PERSON\"), (28, 28+12, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Celieve Barton, an infant, by his Guardian Ad Litem etc., Appellant, v. J. H. Van Gesen, Respondent\", \n",
        "      {\"entities\": [(0, 14, \"PERSON\"), (34, 34+17, \"PERSON\"), (72, 72+15, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"C. L. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. T. M. GOODWILL, Respondent\", {\"entities\": [(0, 14, \"PERSON\"), (30, 30+14, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Glatz, Appellant, vs. Kroeger Brothers Company, Respondent\", {\"entities\": [(0, 5, \"PERSON\"), (22, 22+24, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Karpeles v. City Ice Delivery Co.\", {\"entities\": [(0, 8, \"PERSON\"), (12, 12+21, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Asserina Neilson vs. City of Worcester\", {\"entities\": [(0, 16, \"PERSON\"), (21, 21+17, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Ph. Glickman, Appellee, v. Crane Company, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 12, \"PERSON\"), (27, 27+13, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"CHESTER BIDWELL, Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES AND SAN DIEGO BEACH RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant\", \n",
        "      {\"entities\": [(0, 15, \"PERSON\"), (32, 32+47, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"GRAVES v. PORTLAND RY., LIGHT & POWER CO.\", {\"entities\": [(0, 6, \"PERSON\"), (10, 10+31, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"John E. Waterhouse, Appellee, v. City of Waterloo, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 18, \"PERSON\"), (33, 33+16, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"MATTIE ESKRIDGE, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 15, \"PERSON\"), (32, 32+35, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"GIBSON v. UTAH LIGHT & TRACTION CO.\", {\"entities\": [(0, 6, \"PERSON\"), (10, 10+25, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"CLARK v. JONES\", {\"entities\": [(0, 5, \"PERSON\"), (9, 9+5, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"FRESNO TRACTION COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant\", \n",
        "      {\"entities\": [(0, 23, \"ORG\"), (56, 56+43, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"PERLE C. PEMBERTON, Respondent, v. EDWARD ARNY, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 18, \"PERSON\"), (35, 35+11, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Fort Wayne and Northern Indiana Traction Company et al. v. Parish\", {\"entities\": [(0, 48, \"ORG\"), (59, 59+6, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"AHONEN v. HRYSZKO\", {\"entities\": [(0, 6, \"PERSON\"), (12, 12+7, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"FREDERICK E. OPITZ, Respondent, v. PAUL W. SCHENCK, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 18, \"PERSON\"), (35, 35+15, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"CARTWRIGHT v. NEW ORLEANS RY. & LIGHT CO. et al.\", {\"entities\": [(0, 10, \"PERSON\"), (14, 14+27, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Johnson, Administratrix v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, et al.\", {\"entities\": [(0, 7, \"PERSON\"), (27, 27+30, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent; Linda M. Brown, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent\", {\"entities\": [(0, 14, \"PERSON\"), (51, 51+11, \"PERSON\"), (88, 88+17, \"GPE\"), (119, 119+14, \"PERSON\"), (149, 149+17, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"James M. McILROY v. GIBSON’S APPLE ORCHARD\", {\"entities\": [(0, 16, \"PERSON\"), (20, 20+22, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"BENNETT v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JOHNSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\", {\"entities\": [(0, 7, \"PERSON\"), (11, 11+36, \"GPE\"), (49, 49+7, \"PERSON\"), (60, 60+36, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Kevin Chang, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 11, \"PERSON\"), (27, 27+16, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Kristy HUMPHERY as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Mandrell, Jr., Appellant-Plaintiff, v. DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC., Appellee-Defendant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 15, \"PERSON\"), (60, 60+21, \"PERSON\"), (107, 107+25, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"HAYES et al. v. CRAWFORD\", {\"entities\": [(0, 5, \"PERSON\"), (16, 16+8, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Joel Kim et al., Appellants, v. Carlos F. Acosta, Respondent\", {\"entities\": [(0, 8, \"PERSON\"), (32, 32+16, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Debra Watson, Respondent, v. Jade Luxury Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants\", {\"entities\": [(0, 12, \"PERSON\"), (29, 29+32, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Darlene Todd, Respondent, v. PLSIII, LLC—We Care et al., Appellants and Oscar Hasley, Jr., Respondent. (Action No. 1.); Oscar Hasley, Jr., Respondent, v. PLSIII, LLC—We Care et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)\", {\"entities\": [(0, 12, \"PERSON\"), (29, 29+26, \"ORG\"), (72, 72+17, \"PERSON\"), (120, 120+17, \"PERSON\"), (154, 154+26, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Glen FLETCHER, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Lucille Fletcher; Lucy Fletcher, Plaintiffs, v. PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee, and Yum! Brands, Incorporated, Defendant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 13, \"PERSON\"), (40, 40+16, \"PERSON\"), (58, 58+13, \"PERSON\"), (88, 88+34, \"ORG\"), (148, 148+25, \"ORG\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Peter Poveromo et al., Respondents, v. Town of Cortlandt et al., Appellants\", {\"entities\": [(0, 14, \"PERSON\"), (39, 39+17, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OCTAVIUS L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 35, \"GPE\"), (60, 60+19, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Antoinette McIntosh, an Incapacitated Person, by Her Guardian, Andrea Martin, et al., Appellants, v. Village of Freeport, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)\", {\"entities\": [(0, 19, \"PERSON\"), (63, 63+13, \"PERSON\"), (101, 101+19, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Michelle R. Bailey et al., Respondents, v. County of Tioga et al., Appellants\", {\"entities\": [(0, 18, \"PERSON\"), (43, 43+15, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Susan M. Coffed, as Administrator of the Estate of James B. Coffed, Deceased, Respondent, v. John N. McCarthy et al., Appellants\", {\"entities\": [(0, 15, \"PERSON\"), (51, 51+15, \"PERSON\"), (93, 93+16, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Rolf Ohlhausen, Respondent, v. City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Transit Authority, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 14, \"PERSON\"), (31, 31+16, \"GPE\"), (72, 72+31, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Marlyn Przesiek et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 15, \"PERSON\"), (40, 40+17, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Lori Noller et al., Appellants, v. Miguel Peralta et al., Defendants, and Town of Cornwall, Respondent\", {\"entities\": [(0, 11, \"PERSON\"), (35, 35+15, \"PERSON\"), (74, 74+16, \"GPE\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"Nathaniel Martinez, Respondent, v. Dwight Wascom, Appellant\", {\"entities\": [(0, 18, \"PERSON\"), (35, 35+13, \"PERSON\")]}),\n",
        "    (\"SMITH v. THE STATE\", {\"entities\": [(0, 5, \"PERSON\"), (9, 9+9, \"GPE\")]})\n",
        "]"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 18,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 1000
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "bwYdIYS0oCLs",
        "outputId": "89cc1265-d1bc-42cb-eea0-ce8dd0b98b4a"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Losses {'ner': 424.8287523006771}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 332.3183234319513}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 292.2799712356578}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 258.71377059009797}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 287.0007966591465}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 251.94647533451388}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 243.77187064938698}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 225.17264195625285}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 200.54564825511218}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 218.81177878024755}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 202.52273260562748}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 150.15123056791344}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 189.62786061842291}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 184.2965066613524}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 158.64318904952816}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 161.90379864536226}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 187.5768583726522}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 159.18490618034957}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 139.4120782030161}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 127.55121107371815}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 126.48282271646252}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 120.12303268601558}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 125.84701170474094}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 118.51145071678432}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 97.97596760998923}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 105.45962459111524}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 101.13602304463271}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 95.73615609676871}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 106.98295613561237}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 62.46935501566644}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 90.75367133244274}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 88.49995191778602}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 63.00537214868409}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 68.21891273956678}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 79.40102936205652}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 95.21882883610029}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 60.80577071372135}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 67.76322249632575}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 62.19084411480069}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 73.2283789379813}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 51.57652939168096}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 58.64871053682118}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 53.245456537957764}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 62.42704786176283}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 67.71109226789613}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 53.30284156663731}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 71.29858340756824}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 59.1737057946066}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 75.80295452271261}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 40.06279012092103}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 37.134817103375234}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 50.88611602796996}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 61.82608663616386}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 81.80020216479949}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 38.05290239263184}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 41.24916150476562}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 49.61684683464695}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 50.44532346966003}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 26.983184381092745}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 27.813037087631074}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 38.03533223656434}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 30.544331539599895}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 19.723325816476166}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 15.875006936708987}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 27.88772429059891}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 19.343891566261544}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 45.145821183639804}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 13.550364193162581}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 27.231125050325172}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 15.320912121355137}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 36.944919177018576}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 18.49888863213615}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 28.792141938523404}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 17.623512073202402}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 4.3427384634913455}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 10.520316207295851}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 10.621931002991083}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 15.122130427400453}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 13.805298120528471}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 11.613950165101574}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 25.14140633773045}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 11.241915397017317}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 8.783533856567088}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 20.606951334583975}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 11.129031622694786}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 14.466655466693846}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 14.064838291101204}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 9.943383222239984}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 7.241366466289188}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 11.267306153412488}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 34.95834692082283}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 8.625302952427774}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 11.635410159148929}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 7.534881453553238}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 10.103465470394486}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 9.217598730632037}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 2.513307308320919}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 9.39134261364663}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 5.689756617740751}\n",
            "Losses {'ner': 5.595729424312677}\n",
            "Entities [('Glatz', 'PERSON'), ('Kroeger Brothers Company', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Glatz', 'PERSON', 3), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('vs.', '', 2), ('Kroeger', 'ORG', 3), ('Brothers', 'ORG', 1), ('Company', 'ORG', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('FREDERICK E. OPITZ', 'PERSON'), ('PAUL W. SCHENCK', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('FREDERICK', 'PERSON', 3), ('E.', 'PERSON', 1), ('OPITZ', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('PAUL', 'PERSON', 3), ('W.', 'PERSON', 1), ('SCHENCK', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Debra Watson', 'PERSON'), ('Jade Luxury Transportation Corp.', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Debra', 'PERSON', 3), ('Watson', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Jade', 'ORG', 3), ('Luxury', 'ORG', 1), ('Transportation', 'ORG', 1), ('Corp.', 'ORG', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Defendants', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Marlyn Przesiek', 'PERSON'), ('State of New York', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Marlyn', 'PERSON', 3), ('Przesiek', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondents', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('State', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('New', 'GPE', 1), ('York', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Kevin Chang', 'PERSON'), ('City of New York', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Kevin', 'PERSON', 3), ('Chang', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('City', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('New', 'GPE', 1), ('York', 'GPE', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondents', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Defendant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('John E. Waterhouse', 'PERSON'), ('City of Waterloo', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('John', 'PERSON', 3), ('E.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Waterhouse', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellee', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('City', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Waterloo', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('AHONEN', 'PERSON'), ('HRYSZKO', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('AHONEN', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('HRYSZKO', 'PERSON', 3)]\n",
            "Entities [('CLARK', 'PERSON'), ('JONES', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('CLARK', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('JONES', 'PERSON', 3)]\n",
            "Entities [('Michelle R. Bailey', 'PERSON'), ('County of Tioga', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Michelle', 'PERSON', 3), ('R.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Bailey', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondents', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('County', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Tioga', 'GPE', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Karpeles', 'PERSON'), ('City Ice Delivery Co.', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Karpeles', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('City', 'ORG', 3), ('Ice', 'ORG', 1), ('Delivery', 'ORG', 1), ('Co.', 'ORG', 1)]\n",
            "Entities [('Kristy HUMPHERY', 'PERSON'), ('Charles Mandrell, Jr.', 'PERSON'), ('DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, INC.', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Kristy', 'PERSON', 3), ('HUMPHERY', 'PERSON', 1), ('as', '', 2), ('Personal', '', 2), ('Representative', '', 2), ('of', '', 2), ('the', '', 2), ('Estate', '', 2), ('of', '', 2), ('Charles', 'PERSON', 3), ('Mandrell', 'PERSON', 1), (',', 'PERSON', 1), ('Jr.', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), ('-', '', 2), ('Plaintiff', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('DUKE', 'ORG', 3), ('ENERGY', 'ORG', 1), ('INDIANA', 'ORG', 1), (',', 'ORG', 1), ('INC', 'ORG', 1), ('.', 'ORG', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellee', '', 2), ('-', '', 2), ('Defendant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('James M. McILROY', 'PERSON'), ('GIBSON', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('James', 'PERSON', 3), ('M.', 'PERSON', 1), ('McILROY', 'PERSON', 1), ('v.', '', 2), ('GIBSON', 'PERSON', 3), ('’S', '', 2), ('APPLE', '', 2), ('ORCHARD', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Peter Poveromo', 'PERSON'), ('Town of Cortlandt', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Peter', 'PERSON', 3), ('Poveromo', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondents', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Town', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Cortlandt', 'GPE', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Asserina Neilson', 'PERSON'), ('City of Worcester', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Asserina', 'PERSON', 3), ('Neilson', 'PERSON', 1), ('vs.', '', 2), ('City', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Worcester', 'GPE', 1)]\n",
            "Entities [('FRESNO TRACTION COMPANY', 'ORG'), ('ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('FRESNO', 'ORG', 3), ('TRACTION', 'ORG', 1), ('COMPANY', 'ORG', 1), ('(', '', 2), ('a', '', 2), ('Corporation', '', 2), (')', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('ATCHISON', 'ORG', 3), (',', 'ORG', 1), ('TOPEKA', 'ORG', 1), ('&', 'ORG', 1), ('SANTA', 'ORG', 1), ('FE', 'ORG', 1), ('RAILWAY', 'ORG', 1), ('COMPANY', 'ORG', 1), ('(', '', 2), ('a', '', 2), ('Corporation', '', 2), (')', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Susan M. Coffed', 'PERSON'), ('James B. Coffed', 'PERSON'), ('John N. McCarthy', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Susan', 'PERSON', 3), ('M.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Coffed', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('as', '', 2), ('Administrator', '', 2), ('of', '', 2), ('the', '', 2), ('Estate', '', 2), ('of', '', 2), ('James', 'PERSON', 3), ('B.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Coffed', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Deceased', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('John', 'PERSON', 3), ('N.', 'PERSON', 1), ('McCarthy', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('MATTIE ESKRIDGE', 'PERSON'), ('METROPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('MATTIE', 'PERSON', 3), ('ESKRIDGE', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('METROPOLITAN', 'ORG', 3), ('STREET', 'ORG', 1), ('RAILWAY', 'ORG', 1), ('COMPANY', 'ORG', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS', 'GPE'), ('OCTAVIUS L. JOHNSON', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('THE', 'GPE', 3), ('PEOPLE', 'GPE', 1), ('OF', 'GPE', 1), ('THE', 'GPE', 1), ('STATE', 'GPE', 1), ('OF', 'GPE', 1), ('ILLINOIS', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Plaintiff', '', 2), ('-', '', 2), ('Appellee', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('OCTAVIUS', 'PERSON', 3), ('L.', 'PERSON', 1), ('JOHNSON', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Defendant', '', 2), ('-', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Fannie Cusick', 'PERSON'), ('W. F. Miller', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Fannie', 'PERSON', 3), ('Cusick', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellee', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('W.', 'PERSON', 3), ('F.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Miller', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Lori Noller', 'PERSON'), ('Town of Cornwall', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Lori', 'PERSON', 3), ('Noller', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Miguel', '', 2), ('Peralta', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Defendants', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('and', '', 2), ('Town', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Cornwall', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('GIBSON', 'PERSON'), ('UTAH LIGHT & TRACTION CO.', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('GIBSON', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('UTAH', 'ORG', 3), ('LIGHT', 'ORG', 1), ('&', 'ORG', 1), ('TRACTION', 'ORG', 1), ('CO', 'ORG', 1), ('.', 'ORG', 1)]\n",
            "Entities [('N. R. Walters', 'PERSON'), ('The City of Seattle', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('N.', 'PERSON', 3), ('R.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Walters', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Respondents', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('The', 'GPE', 3), ('City', 'GPE', 1), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Seattle', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('BENNETT', 'PERSON'), ('GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION', 'GPE'), ('JOHNSON', 'PERSON'), ('GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('BENNETT', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('GEORGIA', 'GPE', 3), ('DEPARTMENT', 'GPE', 1), ('OF', 'GPE', 1), ('TRANSPORTATION', 'GPE', 1), (';', '', 2), ('JOHNSON', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('GEORGIA', 'GPE', 3), ('DEPARTMENT', 'GPE', 1), ('OF', 'GPE', 1), ('TRANSPORTATION', 'GPE', 1)]\n",
            "Entities [('Glen FLETCHER', 'PERSON'), ('Lucille Fletcher', 'PERSON'), ('Lucy Fletcher', 'PERSON'), ('PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED', 'ORG'), ('Yum!', 'ORG'), ('Brands, Incorporated', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Glen', 'PERSON', 3), ('FLETCHER', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Plaintiff', '', 2), ('—', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('and', '', 2), ('Lucille', 'PERSON', 3), ('Fletcher', 'PERSON', 1), (';', '', 2), ('Lucy', 'PERSON', 3), ('Fletcher', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Plaintiffs', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('PIZZA', 'ORG', 3), ('HUT', 'ORG', 1), ('OF', 'ORG', 1), ('AMERICA', 'ORG', 1), (',', 'ORG', 1), ('INCORPORATED', 'ORG', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Defendant', '', 2), ('—', '', 2), ('Appellee', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('and', '', 2), ('Yum', 'ORG', 3), ('!', 'ORG', 1), ('Brands', 'GPE', 3), (',', 'GPE', 1), ('Incorporated', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Defendant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Darlene Todd', 'PERSON'), ('PLSIII,', 'ORG'), ('Oscar Hasley, Jr.', 'PERSON'), ('Oscar Hasley, Jr.', 'PERSON'), ('PLSIII, LLC—', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Darlene', 'PERSON', 3), ('Todd', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('PLSIII', 'ORG', 3), (',', 'ORG', 1), ('LLC', '', 2), ('—', '', 2), ('We', '', 2), ('Care', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2), ('and', '', 2), ('Oscar', 'PERSON', 3), ('Hasley', 'PERSON', 1), (',', 'PERSON', 1), ('Jr.', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('(', '', 2), ('Action', '', 2), ('No', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('1', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (')', '', 2), (';', '', 2), ('Oscar', 'PERSON', 3), ('Hasley', 'PERSON', 1), (',', 'PERSON', 1), ('Jr.', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('PLSIII', 'ORG', 3), (',', 'ORG', 1), ('LLC', 'ORG', 1), ('—', 'ORG', 1), ('We', '', 2), ('Care', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('(', '', 2), ('Action', '', 2), ('No', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('2', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (')', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('CHESTER BIDWELL', 'PERSON'), ('LOS ANGELES', 'ORG'), ('SAN DIEGO BEACH RAILWAY COMPANY', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('CHESTER', 'PERSON', 3), ('BIDWELL', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('LOS', 'ORG', 3), ('ANGELES', 'ORG', 1), ('AND', '', 2), ('SAN', 'ORG', 3), ('DIEGO', 'ORG', 1), ('BEACH', 'ORG', 1), ('RAILWAY', 'ORG', 1), ('COMPANY', 'ORG', 1), ('(', '', 2), ('a', '', 2), ('Corporation', '', 2), (')', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('GRAVES', 'PERSON'), ('PORTLAND RY., LIGHT & POWER CO.', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('GRAVES', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('PORTLAND', 'ORG', 3), ('RY', 'ORG', 1), ('.', 'ORG', 1), (',', 'ORG', 1), ('LIGHT', 'ORG', 1), ('&', 'ORG', 1), ('POWER', 'ORG', 1), ('CO', 'ORG', 1), ('.', 'ORG', 1)]\n",
            "Entities [('SMITH', 'PERSON'), ('THE STATE', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('SMITH', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('THE', 'GPE', 3), ('STATE', 'GPE', 1)]\n",
            "Entities [('CARTWRIGHT', 'PERSON'), ('NEW ORLEANS RY. & LIGHT CO.', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('CARTWRIGHT', 'PERSON', 3), ('v.', '', 2), ('NEW', 'ORG', 3), ('ORLEANS', 'ORG', 1), ('RY', 'ORG', 1), ('.', 'ORG', 1), ('&', 'ORG', 1), ('LIGHT', 'ORG', 1), ('CO', 'ORG', 1), ('.', 'ORG', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Rolf Ohlhausen', 'PERSON'), ('City of New York', 'GPE'), ('New York City Transit Authority', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Rolf', 'PERSON', 3), ('Ohlhausen', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('City', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('New', 'GPE', 1), ('York', 'GPE', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Defendants', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('and', '', 2), ('New', 'GPE', 3), ('York', 'GPE', 1), ('City', 'GPE', 1), ('Transit', 'GPE', 1), ('Authority', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Antoinette McIntosh', 'PERSON'), ('Andrea Martin', 'PERSON'), ('Village of Freeport', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Antoinette', 'PERSON', 3), ('McIntosh', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('an', '', 2), ('Incapacitated', '', 2), ('Person', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('by', '', 2), ('Her', '', 2), ('Guardian', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Andrea', 'PERSON', 3), ('Martin', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Village', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('Freeport', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Defendants', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('(', '', 2), ('And', '', 2), ('a', '', 2), ('Third', '', 2), ('-', '', 2), ('Party', '', 2), ('Action', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (')', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Fort Wayne and Northern Indiana Traction Company', 'ORG'), ('Parish', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Fort', 'ORG', 3), ('Wayne', 'ORG', 1), ('and', 'ORG', 1), ('Northern', 'ORG', 1), ('Indiana', 'ORG', 1), ('Traction', 'ORG', 1), ('Company', 'ORG', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Parish', 'PERSON', 3)]\n",
            "Entities [('Johnson', 'PERSON'), ('Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Johnson', 'PERSON', 3), (',', '', 2), ('Administratrix', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Mobile', 'ORG', 3), ('&', 'ORG', 1), ('Ohio', 'ORG', 1), ('Railroad', 'ORG', 1), ('Company', 'ORG', 1), (',', '', 2), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Linda M. Brown', 'PERSON'), ('Wayne Brown', 'PERSON'), ('State of New York', 'GPE'), ('Linda M. Brown', 'PERSON'), ('State of New York', 'GPE')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Linda', 'PERSON', 3), ('M.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Brown', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('as', '', 2), ('Administratrix', '', 2), ('of', '', 2), ('the', '', 2), ('Estate', '', 2), ('of', '', 2), ('Wayne', 'PERSON', 3), ('Brown', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Deceased', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('State', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('New', 'GPE', 1), ('York', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (';', '', 2), ('Linda', 'PERSON', 3), ('M.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Brown', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('State', 'GPE', 3), ('of', 'GPE', 1), ('New', 'GPE', 1), ('York', 'GPE', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Nathaniel Martinez', 'PERSON'), ('Dwight Wascom', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Nathaniel', 'PERSON', 3), ('Martinez', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Dwight', 'PERSON', 3), ('Wascom', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Joel Kim', 'PERSON'), ('Carlos F. Acosta', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Joel', 'PERSON', 3), ('Kim', 'PERSON', 1), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellants', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Carlos', 'PERSON', 3), ('F.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Acosta', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Ph. Glickman', 'PERSON'), ('Crane Company', 'ORG')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Ph', 'PERSON', 3), ('.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Glickman', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellee', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('Crane', 'ORG', 3), ('Company', 'ORG', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('HAYES', 'PERSON'), ('CRAWFORD', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('HAYES', 'PERSON', 3), ('et', '', 2), ('al', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('CRAWFORD', 'PERSON', 3)]\n",
            "Entities [('C. L. LAWRENCE', 'PERSON'), ('T. M. GOODWILL', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('C.', 'PERSON', 3), ('L.', 'PERSON', 1), ('LAWRENCE', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('T.', 'PERSON', 3), ('M.', 'PERSON', 1), ('GOODWILL', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('PERLE C. PEMBERTON', 'PERSON'), ('EDWARD ARNY', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('PERLE', 'PERSON', 3), ('C.', 'PERSON', 1), ('PEMBERTON', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('EDWARD', 'PERSON', 3), ('ARNY', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2)]\n",
            "Entities [('Celieve Barton', 'PERSON'), ('Guardian Ad Litem', 'PERSON'), ('J. H. Van Gesen', 'PERSON')]\n",
            "Tokens [('Celieve', 'PERSON', 3), ('Barton', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('an', '', 2), ('infant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('by', '', 2), ('his', '', 2), ('Guardian', 'PERSON', 3), ('Ad', 'PERSON', 1), ('Litem', 'PERSON', 1), ('etc', '', 2), ('.', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('Appellant', '', 2), (',', '', 2), ('v.', '', 2), ('J.', 'PERSON', 3), ('H.', 'PERSON', 1), ('Van', 'PERSON', 1), ('Gesen', 'PERSON', 1), (',', '', 2), ('Respondent', '', 2)]\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Let's train our own model with the above training data. \n",
        "# Code based on https://github.com/explosion/spaCy/blob/master/examples/training/train_ner.py \n",
        "\n",
        "def train_model(n_iter=100):\n",
        "  nlp = spacy.load('en_core_web_sm')  # Load existing spaCy model\n",
        "\n",
        "  ner = nlp.get_pipe(\"ner\")\n",
        "  # Add labels\n",
        "  for _, annotations in TRAIN_DATA:\n",
        "    for ent in annotations.get(\"entities\"):\n",
        "      ner.add_label(ent[2])\n",
        "\n",
        "  # get names of other pipes to disable them during training\n",
        "  pipe_exceptions = [\"ner\", \"trf_wordpiecer\", \"trf_tok2vec\"]\n",
        "  other_pipes = [pipe for pipe in nlp.pipe_names if pipe not in pipe_exceptions]\n",
        "  with nlp.disable_pipes(*other_pipes):  # only train NER\n",
        "      for itn in range(n_iter):\n",
        "          random.shuffle(TRAIN_DATA)\n",
        "          losses = {}\n",
        "          # batch up the examples using spaCy's minibatch\n",
        "          batches = minibatch(TRAIN_DATA, size=compounding(4.0, 32.0, 1.001))\n",
        "          for batch in batches:\n",
        "              texts, annotations = zip(*batch)\n",
        "              nlp.update(\n",
        "                  texts,  # batch of texts\n",
        "                  annotations,  # batch of annotations\n",
        "                  drop=0.5,  # dropout - make it harder to memorise data\n",
        "                  losses=losses,\n",
        "              )\n",
        "          print(\"Losses\", losses)\n",
        "\n",
        "  # test the trained model\n",
        "  for text, _ in TRAIN_DATA:\n",
        "    doc = nlp(text)\n",
        "    print(\"Entities\", [(ent.text, ent.label_) for ent in doc.ents])\n",
        "    print(\"Tokens\", [(t.text, t.ent_type_, t.ent_iob) for t in doc])\n",
        "  \n",
        "  # TODO save new model? If so, orig code has that template. \n",
        "  return nlp \n",
        "\n",
        "better_nlp = train_model()"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "joZXcOKzj0DF"
      },
      "source": [
        "You can see that `spacy` prints out losses when it is training the new model, like so: \n",
        "```\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 424.8287523006771}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 332.3183234319513}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 292.2799712356578}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 258.71377059009797}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 287.0007966591465}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 251.94647533451388}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 243.77187064938698}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 225.17264195625285}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 200.54564825511218}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 218.81177878024755}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 202.52273260562748}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 150.15123056791344}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 189.62786061842291}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 184.2965066613524}\n",
        "Losses {'ner': 158.64318904952816}\n",
        "```\n",
        "\n",
        "The numbers measure how many mistakes `spacy`'s model makes on the training data I provided. These losses are generally decreasing as it trains the new model, which means the new model is getting slowly better at handling my training data. Now that the new model is ready, let's see if it handles the case names better. Let's ask it to label some cases it has never seen before. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 19,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 1000
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "RmjnD32pwkHi",
        "outputId": "56cc96af-0d78-4626-c2ad-27042aedc084"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Nankumarie Gobin et al., Appellants, v. Brenda Y. Delgado, Respondent\n",
            "    Nankumarie Gobin PERSON\n",
            "    Brenda Y. Delgado PERSON\n",
            "Rosario Caruso, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Nikolajs Gnatjuks et al., Appellants\n",
            "    Rosario Caruso PERSON\n",
            "    Nikolajs Gnatjuks PERSON\n",
            "Laurel E. Gause, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Respondent, and Darryl L. Gause, Respondent, v. Carlos Martinez, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant\n",
            "    Laurel E. Gause PERSON\n",
            "    Darryl L. Gause PERSON\n",
            "    Carlos Martinez PERSON\n",
            "Darlene Amaral, Appellant, v. Brittany Reph et al., Respondents\n",
            "    Darlene Amaral PERSON\n",
            "    Brittany Reph ORG\n",
            "Stella Galagotis, Appellant, v. Joseph L. Armenti et al., Respondents\n",
            "    Stella Galagotis PERSON\n",
            "    Joseph L. Armenti PERSON\n",
            "Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)\n",
            "    Linda M. Brown PERSON\n",
            "    Wayne Brown PERSON\n",
            "    State of New York GPE\n",
            "Young Rae Kim, Appellant, v. Heon Young Chong, Defendant, and Shigeru Nakazawa, Respondent\n",
            "    Young Rae Kim PERSON\n",
            "    Heon Young Chong PERSON\n",
            "    Shigeru Nakazawa PERSON\n",
            "RAHMAAN v. DeKALB COUNTY et al.\n",
            "    RAHMAAN PERSON\n",
            "    DeKALB COUNTY GPE\n",
            "Roxi Rahaman et al., Respondents, v. Hid Abodeledhman et al., Respondents, and Mauz M. Terab et al., Appellants\n",
            "    Roxi Rahaman PERSON\n",
            "    Hid Abodeledhman PERSON\n",
            "    Mauz M. Terab PERSON\n",
            "Trevor Wilson et al., Appellants, v. Jennifer M. Philie, Respondent\n",
            "    Trevor Wilson PERSON\n",
            "    Jennifer M. Philie PERSON\n",
            "DUNAGAN v. THE STATE\n",
            "    DUNAGAN PERSON\n",
            "    THE STATE GPE\n",
            "James CHAUFF, III v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Crescent Crown Distributing, L.L.C., Kevin L. Fuller and Lawrence Schmidt\n",
            "    James CHAUFF PERSON\n",
            "    NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY ORG\n",
            "    Crown Distributing, L.L.C. PERSON\n",
            "    Kevin L. Fuller PERSON\n",
            "    Lawrence Schmidt PERSON\n",
            "Jessica Nohs, Respondent, v. John C. DiRaimondo, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Jordan Lynne Nohs et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents\n",
            "    Jessica Nohs PERSON\n",
            "    John C. DiRaimondo PERSON\n",
            "    Jordan Lynne Nohs PERSON\n",
            "Lori Leann Manley, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of Darren R. Manley, Deceased, Amanda Tubbs, and Derrick Manley, Appellants, v. Steven B. Hallbauer and Kathie M. Hallbauer, Appellees\n",
            "    Lori Leann Manley PERSON\n",
            "    Darren R. Manley PERSON\n",
            "    Amanda Tubbs PERSON\n",
            "    Derrick Manley PERSON\n",
            "    Steven B. Hallbauer PERSON\n",
            "    Kathie M. Hallbauer PERSON\n",
            "KATHERINE HEUPEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JORIE LYNN JENKINS, Defendant-Appellee\n",
            "    KATHERINE HEUPEL PERSON\n",
            "    JORIE LYNN JENKINS ORG\n",
            "Mark Dodge et al., Respondents, v. County of Erie, Appellant, et al., Defendants\n",
            "    Mark Dodge PERSON\n",
            "    County of Erie GPE\n",
            "Kim Achaibar, Plaintiff, v. City of New York et al., Defendants\n",
            "    Kim Achaibar PERSON\n",
            "    City of New York GPE\n",
            "Colin Bowers, Appellant, v. Pamela M. Marzano et al., Respondents\n",
            "    Colin Bowers PERSON\n",
            "    Pamela M. Marzano PERSON\n",
            "Daniel Lorentz, Appellant, v. Richard Ruiz, Respondent. (And a Related Action.)\n",
            "    Daniel Lorentz PERSON\n",
            "    Richard Ruiz PERSON\n",
            "Brett Ostrander, Respondent, v. Linda A. Sannicandro, Appellant, and William J. Scharff, Respondent\n",
            "    Brett Ostrander PERSON\n",
            "    Linda A. Sannicandro PERSON\n",
            "    William J. Scharff PERSON\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "print_labels_check(new_case_list, better_nlp, 20, 40)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "fl0sySLXke9X"
      },
      "source": [
        "Not bad! `spacy` is no longer making as many errors as it was before. For example, it labels the below case correctly: \n",
        "```\n",
        "Mark Dodge et al., Respondents, v. County of Erie, Appellant, et al., Defendants\n",
        "    Mark Dodge PERSON\n",
        "    County of Erie GPE\n",
        "```\n",
        "\n",
        "Before training, `spacy` would probably have labelled \"Respondents\" and \"Appellant\" as people, and may have split \"County\" and \"Erie\" into two. \n",
        "\n",
        "Now let's get `spacy` to label all parties in the case lists I have. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 22,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 289
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "5i7yxnAnyEB0",
        "outputId": "5c30c88d-b9fe-4be0-e3a7-41058f924aac"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Cases from 1910-20:\n",
            "858 people were named, which is 63.64985163204748% of all the parties named\n",
            "415 organizations were named, which is 30.78635014836795% of all the parties named\n",
            "63.92617449664429% of cases name an organization\n",
            "75 geopolitical entities were named, which is 5.563798219584569% of all the parties named\n",
            "12.248322147651006% of cases name a geopolitical entity\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "Cases from 2008-18:\n",
            "2252 people were named, which is 71.01860611794386% of all the parties named\n",
            "536 organizations were named, which is 16.903185115105646% of all the parties named\n",
            "38.12282734646582% of cases name an organization\n",
            "383 geopolitical entities were named, which is 12.078208766950489% of all the parties named\n",
            "32.79258400926999% of cases name a geopolitical entity\n",
            "\n",
            "\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "def label_parties(cases):\n",
        "  people_count = 0 \n",
        "  org_count = 0 \n",
        "  gpe_count = 0 \n",
        "  cases_with_org = 0\n",
        "  cases_with_gpe = 0\n",
        "  for case in cases: \n",
        "    case_name = case['name']\n",
        "    parsed_case_name = better_nlp(case_name) \n",
        "    people_count += sum([1 for ent in parsed_case_name.ents if ent.label_ == 'PERSON'])\n",
        "    this_case_org_count = sum([1 for ent in parsed_case_name.ents if ent.label_ == 'ORG'])\n",
        "    org_count += this_case_org_count\n",
        "    this_case_gpe_count = sum([1 for ent in parsed_case_name.ents if ent.label_ == 'GPE'])\n",
        "    gpe_count += this_case_gpe_count \n",
        "    if (this_case_org_count):\n",
        "      cases_with_org += 1\n",
        "    if (this_case_gpe_count):\n",
        "      cases_with_gpe += 1\n",
        "    #   print(case['id'])\n",
        "\n",
        "  total_count = people_count + org_count + gpe_count\n",
        "  print(f\"{people_count} people were named, which is {(people_count*100)/total_count}% of all the parties named\")\n",
        "  print(f\"{org_count} organizations were named, which is {(org_count*100)/total_count}% of all the parties named\")\n",
        "  print(f\"{(cases_with_org*100)/len(cases)}% of cases name an organization\")\n",
        "  print(f\"{gpe_count} geopolitical entities were named, which is {(gpe_count*100)/total_count}% of all the parties named\")\n",
        "  print(f\"{(cases_with_gpe*100)/len(cases)}% of cases name a geopolitical entity\")\n",
        "  print(\"\\n\")\n",
        "\n",
        "print(\"Cases from 1910-20:\")\n",
        "label_parties(old_case_list)\n",
        "print(\"Cases from 2008-18:\")\n",
        "label_parties(new_case_list)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "VdCflwjhmxKH"
      },
      "source": [
        "Interesting! Moving from 1910-20 to 2008-18, I see the following changes: \n",
        "- Fewer organizations are named \n",
        "- More geopolitical entities are named \n",
        "\n",
        "Because I skimmed through the cases when collecting them, I have a guess for the first trend. My guess is that many cases involving organizations in 1910-20 were about railways. Since the number of accidents involving trains has gone down since then, fewer railways are named in cases in 2008-18, which accounts for why fewer organizations are named in 2008-18. \n",
        "\n",
        "However, the second trend is unexpected. Why are more geopolitical entities being named? I want to dig deeper into this. By uncommenting `#   print(case['id'])` in the function above, I can get the case IDs of the cases involving geopolitical entities. I can then put all those case IDs in a file called `case_list` and download the full case text for those case IDs using the following script: \n",
        "\n",
        "```python\n",
        "import requests, jsonlines\n",
        "\n",
        "with jsonlines.open('gpe_cases_old.jsonl', mode='w') as writer:\n",
        "    with open('case_list', 'r') as case_list:\n",
        "        for line in case_list:\n",
        "            line = line.strip()\n",
        "            case_no = line\n",
        "            response = requests.get(\n",
        "                f'https://api.case.law/v1/cases/{case_no}/?full_case=true',\n",
        "                headers={'Authorization': 'Token my_caselaw_token'}\n",
        "            )\n",
        "            resp_json = response.json()\n",
        "            writer.write(resp_json)\n",
        "```\n",
        "\n",
        "For the sake of speed, and not hitting my 500-case daily limit, I have already downloaded those cases and saved them. Let's get those cases now. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 2,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 34
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "XPgFKbHwoWj2",
        "outputId": "e216f408-330c-4b67-f26b-bee002086d7a"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "text/plain": [
              "'gpe_cases_new.jsonl'"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 2,
          "metadata": {
            "tags": []
          },
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Load fullbody cases into local memory \n",
        "gpe_cases_old_file = 'https://ketchupduck.s3.amazonaws.com/gpe_cases_old.jsonl'\n",
        "wget.download(gpe_cases_old_file)\n",
        "gpe_cases_new_file = 'https://ketchupduck.s3.amazonaws.com/gpe_cases_new.jsonl'\n",
        "wget.download(gpe_cases_new_file)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 0,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {},
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "d7zA2xOfYX74"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "def load_case_body(filename):\n",
        "  cases = []\n",
        "\n",
        "  with open(filename, 'r') as case_file:\n",
        "    for line in case_file:\n",
        "      record = json.loads(line)\n",
        "      cases.append(record)\n",
        "\n",
        "  print(f'Number of cases: {len(cases)}')\n",
        "  return cases"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 4,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 102
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "894_bw5jN1U4",
        "outputId": "cc335f2b-3e7b-4a99-d646-223efe987238"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Cases from 1910-20:\n",
            "Number of cases: 69\n",
            "\n",
            "Cases from 2008-18:\n",
            "Number of cases: 266\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "print(\"Cases from 1910-20:\")\n",
        "gpe_cases_old = load_case_body(gpe_cases_old_file.split('/')[-1])\n",
        "print(\"\\nCases from 2008-18:\")\n",
        "gpe_cases_new = load_case_body(gpe_cases_new_file.split('/')[-1])"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "Eb9R_XlDpSov"
      },
      "source": [
        "Let's see what one of the cases looks like. Note that now, I have the case text as part of my data. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 29,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 1000
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "kydsiNVEW7bs",
        "outputId": "cfb64fe4-3a76-4303-cd11-5a20c93ab4f8"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "{\n",
            "  \"id\": 4001922,\n",
            "  \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/cases/4001922/\",\n",
            "  \"name\": \"Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent; Linda M. Brown, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent\",\n",
            "  \"name_abbreviation\": \"Brown v. State\",\n",
            "  \"decision_date\": \"2010-12-30\",\n",
            "  \"docket_number\": \"Claim No. 108961; Claim No. 110037\",\n",
            "  \"first_page\": \"1579\",\n",
            "  \"last_page\": \"1587\",\n",
            "  \"citations\": [\n",
            "    {\n",
            "      \"type\": \"official\",\n",
            "      \"cite\": \"79 A.D.3d 1579\"\n",
            "    },\n",
            "    {\n",
            "      \"type\": \"parallel\",\n",
            "      \"cite\": \"914 N.Y.S.2d 512\"\n",
            "    }\n",
            "  ],\n",
            "  \"volume\": {\n",
            "    \"volume_number\": \"79\",\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/volumes/32044132256744/\",\n",
            "    \"barcode\": \"32044132256744\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"reporter\": {\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/reporters/109/\",\n",
            "    \"id\": 109,\n",
            "    \"full_name\": \"Appellate Division Reports\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"court\": {\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/courts/ny-app-div-3/\",\n",
            "    \"name_abbreviation\": \"N.Y. App. Div.\",\n",
            "    \"slug\": \"ny-app-div-3\",\n",
            "    \"name\": \"New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division\",\n",
            "    \"id\": 8994\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"jurisdiction\": {\n",
            "    \"slug\": \"ny\",\n",
            "    \"url\": \"https://api.case.law/v1/jurisdictions/ny/\",\n",
            "    \"name_long\": \"New York\",\n",
            "    \"whitelisted\": false,\n",
            "    \"id\": 1,\n",
            "    \"name\": \"N.Y.\"\n",
            "  },\n",
            "  \"frontend_url\": \"https://cite.case.law/ad3d/79/1579/\",\n",
            "  \"preview\": [],\n",
            "  \"casebody\": {\n",
            "    \"status\": \"ok\",\n",
            "    \"data\": {\n",
            "      \"judges\": [],\n",
            "      \"attorneys\": [],\n",
            "      \"opinions\": [\n",
            "        {\n",
            "          \"type\": \"majority\",\n",
            "          \"author\": null,\n",
            "          \"text\": \"Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Nicholas Y Midey, Jr., J.), entered August 8, 2008. The judgment dismissed the claims for personal injury and wrongful death.\\nIt is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is modified on the law by granting that part of the post-trial motion with respect to the issue of proximate cause and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Court of Claims for a determination on the issue of proximate cause in accordance with the following memorandum: Claimant commenced these consolidated actions, individually and as administratrix of the estate of her husband (hereafter, decedent), seeking damages for her injuries and his wrongful death resulting from a right-angle motor vehicle accident in an intersection. At the time of the accident, decedent was operating a motorcycle north on State Route 350 (Route 350), near the intersection of Paddy Lane in the Town of Ontario, and claimant was a passenger on that motorcycle. The posted speed limit on Route 350 in that area was 55 miles per hour. William Friend was contemporaneously operating a pickup truck east on Paddy Lane. After stopping at the stop sign at the intersection of Paddy Lane and Route 350 (intersection), Friend looked both ways down Route 350 and then proceeded to drive his vehicle straight across Route 350 at an approximate speed of five miles per hour. Before safely reaching the other side of Route 350, Friend experienced what he described as a \\u201cground explosion.\\u201d It is undisputed that what Friend was in fact experiencing was a collision between his vehicle and decedent\\u2019s motorcycle while the vehicle driven by Friend was still crossing the intersection. Friend indicated that, although he looked in both directions, he never observed decedent\\u2019s motorcycle at any time prior to the collision in the intersection.\\nAccording to claimant\\u2019s pleadings, the intersection \\u201chas a long history of motor vehicle accidents due to a negligent and improper design of the intersection; excessive speed limit for Route 350 relative to the topography of [that road] south of the intersection . . . ; [and] inadequate posting of signs and/or lack of signs including but not limited to flashing warning signs.\\u201d Claimant further alleged that defendant had been \\u201cwarned of the dangerous nature of the intersection . . . and . . . negligently failed to take any action to reduce [its] apparent dangerous nature.\\u201d In its answer to each claim, defendant asserted the affirmative defense of governmental immunity (see Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 588 [1960], rearg denied 8 NY2d 934 [I960]). Following a trial, the Court of Claims concluded that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Weiss v Fote inasmuch as defendant abandoned its study of the intersection that began approximately four years prior to the accident.\\nNevertheless, the court concluded that claimant was required to establish that defendant\\u2019s \\u201cfailure to complete [the] intersection safety study was a proximate cause of the accident forming the basis of [the] claim[s].\\u201d The court determined that claimant failed to meet that burden and dismissed the claims. In denying claimant\\u2019s post-trial motion to set aside the decision and for a new decision pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b), the court explained that in its original decision it found that defendant \\u201chad notice of a dangerous condition and had failed to take reasonable measures to remedy that condition\\u201d and determined that defendant\\u2019s failure \\u201cto implement a safety plan for [the] intersection within a reasonable period of time was not a proximate cause of the accident.\\u201d\\nWe note at the outset that, although claimant appeals from the court\\u2019s \\u201c[d]ecision and [o]rder,\\u201d that document is only a decision from which no appeal lies (see Pecora v Lawrence, 28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2006]). We nevertheless exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal as taken from, the judgment entered in these consolidated actions (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Ponzi v Ponzi, 45 AD3d 1327 [2007]; Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988 [1988]). On appeal, claimant contends that the court applied an inappropriate breach of duty, negligence and proximate cause analysis. Claimant further contends that, in the undisputed absence of any Weiss v Fote issues, her burden at trial was limited to establishing that the intersection presented a dangerous condition of which defendant had notice and that the dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the accident, claimant\\u2019s injuries and the death of decedent. We agree and conclude that, inasmuch as the court incorrectly applied elements of the Weiss v Fote doctrine to the negligence and proximate cause analysis after determining that defendant was not entitled to the benefits of that doctrine, the matter must be remitted to the Court of Claims for a proximate cause determination that utilizes the proper standard.\\nThere are certain undisputed facts that guide our analysis. First, defendant abandoned any study that had been undertaken with respect to the conditions of the intersection and the speed limit for vehicles approaching the intersection while traveling on Route 350. Second, no study or plan was underway at the time of the accident. Third, defendant did not present any evidence at trial establishing that the design and signage of the intersection on the date of the accident was the product of any prior study or plan. Therefore, inasmuch as the evidence established that the signage, configuration and sight distance of the intersection, together with their interaction with the approaching speed limit on Route 350 (see e.g. Vega v State of New York, 10 Misc 3d 822, 829-830 [2005], affd 37 AD3d 825 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 812 [2007]), were not \\u201cthe product of a governmental plan or study,\\u201d the doctrine of Weiss v Fote and all of its component parts \\u201cdo[ ] not apply\\u201d to the analysis of this appeal (Cummins v County of Onondaga, 198 AD2d 875, 877 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 322 [1994]). Defendant therefore correctly concedes that it is not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Weiss v Fote.\\nHowever, notwithstanding its rejection of defendant\\u2019s Weiss v Fote defense, the court proceeded to reintroduce elements of the Weiss v Fote doctrine into the analysis when it concluded that claimant\\u2019s burden of proof still required claimant to establish that the \\u201cfailure to complete [the] intersection safety study was a proximate cause of the accident.\\u201d That was error. The appropriate inquiry was whether defendant was made aware of a dangerous condition and failed to take action to remedy it and whether the dangerous condition was the proximate cause of the accident (see Posman v State of New York, 117 AD2d 915, 917 [1986]).\\nClaimant established at trial that, prior to the accident in April 2003, the Department of Transportation (DOT) received accident history data from the State Accident Surveillance System, which indicated that at least 17 right-angle accidents involving failure to yield the right-of-way as a contributing factor occurred at the intersection between August 1996 and June 2002. In six of those accidents, the drivers reported that they stopped on Paddy Lane but did not see the oncoming vehicles on Route 350 before the accident. Defendant\\u2019s traffic safety engineering expert testified that \\u201cthe pattern of right-angle accidents involved . . . people coming to the stop sign on [Paddy Lane] and then entering the intersection.\\u201d In a 1999 resolution, the Ontario Town Board asked the Wayne County Superintendent of Highways to request that the DOT reduce the speed limit, on Route 350 from 55 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour and \\u201creview the feasability of installing a blinking caution light at the intersection.\\u201d It is undisputed that, in response to that data and the resolution, defendant did not reduce the speed limit on Route 350 approaching the intersection, nor did it change the design or signage of the intersection. Claimant\\u2019s traffic engineering expert testified that a vertical curve in Route 350 south of the intersection, combined with the speed limit on Route 350 of 55 miles per hour, were relevant factors in the right-angle accident pattern and that the dangerous condition of the intersection and the pattern of accidents could have been remedied by the installation of four-way stop signs. Although defendant contends that certain incremental steps would have been attempted at the intersection prior to the installation of four-way stop signs, defendant took none of those steps. Defendant offered no evidence that the intersection was \\u201creasonably safe\\u201d as configured or that it complied with any highway engineering standards at the time it was built or at the time of the accident. The fact that defendant failed to complete any study of the intersection belies its contention that one or more incremental steps were necessary before four-way stop signs would be installed.\\nIt is well settled that, \\u201c[i]f the conditions were substantially the same, evidence of prior accidents is admissible: first, to show the dangerous condition . . . [that] caused the accident; and second, to prove that the [entity] responsible had notice of such conditions\\u201d (Prince, Richardson on Evidence \\u00a7 4-622 [Farrell 11th ed]). \\u201cIt was incumbent upon claimant to establish not only the number of prior accidents at the subject location[ ] but also to produce evidence that the prior accidents were of a similar nature to the accident [in question]. In addition, the burden upon claimant required her to prove that prior accidents of a similar nature were caused by the same or similar contributing factors [that] caused the instant accident\\u201d (Hough v State of New York, 203 AD2d 736, 738-739 [1994]). The evidence amply demonstrated that defendant\\u2019s design of the intersection with two-way stop signs had proven inadequate in light of the accident history (see Posman, 117 AD2d at 917). When defendant is made aware of a dangerous highway condition and does not take steps to remedy it, defendant can be held liable for the resulting injuries (see Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 673-674 [1999], rearg denied 93 NY2d 1042 [1999]; Scheemaker v State of New York, 125 AD2d 964 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 985 [1988] [\\u201cState\\u2019s failure to post lower mandatory speed limit signs at this dangerous intersection may be deemed a proximate cause of the accident\\u201d]).\\nHere, based upon that evidence, we conclude the court properly determined with respect to defendant\\u2019s negligence that claimant established that defendant had notice of the dangerous condition of the intersection and failed to take remedial action. That determination correctly resolved in claimant\\u2019s favor defendant\\u2019s failure to maintain the highway and the intersection in a \\u201creasonably safe\\u201d condition (cf. Marshall v State of New York, 252 AD2d 852, 853-854 [1998] [no evidence of prior similar accidents, and the State rebutted the claimant\\u2019s inadequate sight distance theory]). Thus, we agree with claimant that the remaining issue to be determined was whether the dangerous condition of the intersection was a proximate cause of the accident.\\nWe note that this case is unlike those cases where the issue of the applicability of the Weiss v Fote doctrine is at issue because the State relies upon the existence of an allegedly adequate and well-reasoned plan or study. In such cases, even though the State has a plan or study, a claimant may still overcome Weiss v Fote immunity by demonstrating that the State was negligent in failing to implement a remedial highway planning decision once it has been made (see Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 284 [1986]), or where \\u201cthe plan either was evolved without adequate study or lacked reasonable basis\\u201d (Weiss, 7 NY2d at 589; see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 466-467 [1984]). However, because defendant does not rely upon such a plan or study, this case should proceed, as the Court of Appeals made clear in Weiss v Fote, under the \\u201cdifferent theory\\u201d that, \\u201chaving planned the intersection, [defendant] was under a continuing duty to review its plan in the light of its actual operation and that the proof established a breach of such duty\\u201d (7 NY2d at 587). Here, as the Court of Claims found in Eastman v State of New York (303 NY 691 [1951], revg 278 App Div 1 [1951]), the evidence established that at the time of the accident and prior thereto, the intersection was an unreasonably dangerous intersection (see id. at 692). Thus, this case is among those where the negligence of the State or the municipality was established by the need for remedial action \\u201cnecessitated by a known dangerous condition or a prior history of accidents at the site\\u201d (Chunhye Kang-Kim v City of New York, 29 AD3d 57, 61 [2006]).\\nWe conclude under the circumstances of this case that the court is in the best position to determine the issue of proximate cause. We therefore modify the judgment by granting that part of the post-trial motion to set aside \\u201cthe decision\\u201d with respect to the issue of proximate cause. We remit the matter to the Court of Claims for a determination on this record of whether the dangerous condition of the intersection because of the vertical curve in the line of sight looking south from Paddy Lane, combined with the speed limit of 55 miles per hour and the absence of four-way stop signs at the intersection, \\u201cmay be deemed a proximate cause of the accident\\u201d (Scheemaker, 125 AD2d at 965).\\nThe conclusion to the contrary by our dissenting colleagues that, notwithstanding the inapplicability of Weiss v Fote, claimant was still \\u201crequired to show what corrective action should have been taken by defendant and that such corrective action would have been completed before and would have prevented the accident\\u201d may be readily dispensed with. Initially, and inasmuch as the evidence established that this case rests upon the \\u201centirely different theory\\u201d that defendant \\u201cwas under a continuing duty to review its [intersection] plan in the light of its actual operation\\u201d (Weiss, 7 NY2d at 587), the dissent\\u2019s highway planning and design implementation analysis is misplaced. Second, where claimant\\u2019s case proceeds upon a \\u201cdifferent theory\\u201d (id.), as it does here, the dissent\\u2019s imposition upon claimant of the burden of proving what corrective action would have \\u201cprevented the accident\\u201d has been rejected (see id., discussing Eastman, 303 NY 691). Third, Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. School Dist. (93 NY2d at 675), decided subsequent to Alexander v Eldred, upon which the dissent relies, makes clear that a claimant need only establish that the absence of safety measures \\u201ccontributed to the happening of the accident by materially increasing the risk,\\u201d or by \\u201c \\u2018greatly increasing the probability of its occurrence\\u2019 \\u201d (id., quoting Humphrey v State of New York, 90 AD2d 901, 902 [1982], affd 60 NY2d 742 [1983]).\\nFinally, we note that the record demonstrates that decedent was operating the motorcycle \\u201cwithin the law and in accordance with common practice,\\u201d and thus decedent\\u2019s familiarity with the accident site does not preclude liability as a matter of law (Scheemaker, 125 AD2d at 965).\\nAll concur except Centra, J.E, and Feradotto, J., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum.\"\n",
            "        },\n",
            "        {\n",
            "          \"type\": \"dissent\",\n",
            "          \"author\": \"Centra, J.P., and Peradotto, J.\",\n",
            "          \"text\": \"Centra, J.P., and Peradotto, J.\\n(dissenting). We respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment dismissing the claims. Claimant was seriously injured and her husband (decedent) died when a pickup truck collided with their motorcycle at an intersection in Wayne County. The driver of the pickup truck stopped at the stop sign on Faddy Lane, but he failed to yield the right-of-way to decedent and pulled in front of and collided with the motorcycle. Decedent was operating the motorcycle on State Route 350 (Route 350), which did not have a stop sign or other traffic control device at the intersection with Faddy Lane (intersection). According to claimant, there was a history of accidents at the intersection based on, inter alia, its negligent design and \\u201cinadequate posting of signs and/or lack of signs including but not limited to flashing warning signs.\\u201d\\nOn this appeal from a judgment following a nonjury trial, we must view the record in the light most favorable to sustain the judgment and give \\u201c \\u2018due deference to the . . . court\\u2019s determinations regarding witness credibility\\u2019 \\u201d (Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency [Alterm, Inc.], 20 AD3d 168, 170 [2005]). Further, \\u201cthe decision of the . . . court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court\\u2019s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence\\u201d (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992] [internal quotation marks omitted], rearg denied 81 NY2d 835 [1993]; see Garofalo v State of New York, 17 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]; Farace v State of New York, 266 AD2d 870, 871 [1999]).\\nThe Court of Claims properly concluded that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579 [I960]). Although defendant was notified that the intersection was potentially dangerous and initiated a study in February 1999, it abandoned and never completed that study before the accident at issue in April 2003. Defendant therefore may be liable for its failure to undertake an adequate study (see generally Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 284 [1986]). We cannot agree with the majority, however, that the court erred in failing to determine whether the dangerous condition of the intersection was a proximate cause of the accident. Indeed, we agree with the court that defendant\\u2019s negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident.\\n\\u201cOne who is injured in a traffic accident can recover against [the State] if it is shown that its failure to install a traffic control or warning device was negligent under the circumstances, that [such] omission was a contributing cause of the mishap, and that there was no reasonable basis for the [State\\u2019s] inaction\\u201d (Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 463-464 [1984]). In our view, claimant was required to show more than that the potentially dangerous condition of the intersection was a proximate cause of her injuries and decedent\\u2019s death. Rather, she was required to show what corrective action should have been taken by defendant and that such corrective action would have been completed before and would have prevented the accident. For example, in Alexander, the plaintiff established that there was an inadequate study and unreasonable basis for the defendant municipality\\u2019s traffic plan (id. at 466). At trial, the plaintiff submitted evidence that a stop sign should have been in place, and that evidence was unrefuted by the defendant municipality (id. at 464-465). The Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiff presented evidence establishing that the defendant municipality failed to install the necessary stop sign without an adequate study or reasonable basis, that the driver failed to stop at the proper location and that the accident might have been avoided had a stop sign been in place (id. at 469).\\nIn this case, the court rejected the opinion of claimant\\u2019s expert that, had defendant completed its study, a four-way stop would necessarily have been installed at the intersection prior to the accident. The court accepted the conclusions of defendant\\u2019s expert that any corrective action would have been implemented incrementally, and thus the court determined that it was pure speculation to conclude that a four-way stop \\u2014 the corrective action suggested by claimant\\u2019s expert \\u2014 would have been in place before claimant\\u2019s accident even if defendant had undertaken a timely and adequate study. The court noted that claimant\\u2019s expert agreed that the actions of defendant in remedying the condition following a study would have been incremental and that a four-way stop would have been installed only if other measures proved ineffective.\\nThe court\\u2019s determination is supported by the testimony of defendant\\u2019s expert that a four-way stop was not \\u201ca typical corrective action\\u201d where, as here, the majority of vehicles involved in accidents at an intersection are stopping at the posted stop signs. Indeed, that expert testified that four-way stops are \\u201crarely used approaches to addressing accident histories.\\u201d Defendant\\u2019s expert further testified that, depending on the findings following a study, defendant may not have taken any corrective action and that there were already intersection warning signs in place on Route 350 and stop signs controlling traffic on Paddy Lane.\\nWe therefore conclude that the determination of the court that defendant\\u2019s negligence was not a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by claimant and decedent\\u2019s death is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Present \\u2014 Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.\"\n",
            "        }\n",
            "      ],\n",
            "      \"head_matter\": \"Linda M. Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Brown, Deceased, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent. Linda M. Brown, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.\\n(Claim No. 108961.)\\n(Claim No. 110037.)\\n[914 NYS2d 512]\",\n",
            "      \"corrections\": \"\"\n",
            "    }\n",
            "  }\n",
            "}\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "print(json.dumps(gpe_cases_new[0], indent=2))"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "HCuDpW_-pef5"
      },
      "source": [
        "Now I have about 330 cases that I find interesting, but I don't want to spend a week reading through all of them. Thankfully, the `gensim` library is pretty good at summarizing text. It does this by extracting the most \"central\" sentences in a text. [The documentation provides more explanation of how it does this.](https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/summarization/summariser.html)\n",
        "\n",
        "In my imports above, I already imported the summarize function with `from gensim.summarization.summarizer import summarize`. Now, I can call that function below with `summarize(case_text, word_count=500)`, which tells `gensim` to give me a summary with about 500 words. \n",
        "\n",
        "I am more curious about the fact pattern of each case than about the legal reasoning employed in each case, and from my past experience, I know that the fact pattern is usually discussed in the first half of a case, while the legal reasoning is usually discussed in the second half of a case. So I also split my cases in half and only summarized the first half. \n",
        "\n"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 0,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {},
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "QGIBpqKlYr8r"
      },
      "outputs": [],
      "source": [
        "wrapper = TextWrapper()\n",
        "# Function to summarize cases \n",
        "def summarize_case(case):\n",
        "  case_text = case['casebody']['data']['opinions'][0]['text']\n",
        "  # Rough heuristic - description of case is in first half of text \n",
        "  len_case_text = len(case_text)\n",
        "  if (len_case_text > 3000):\n",
        "    len_case_text //= 2 \n",
        "  case_text = case_text[0:len_case_text]\n",
        "  summary = summarize(case_text, word_count=500)\n",
        "  print(f\"Case ID: {case['id']}\")\n",
        "  print(f\"Full case text is at: {case['frontend_url']}\")\n",
        "  print(wrapper.fill(summary))\n",
        "  print('\\n-------\\n')"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "HEgutv_iq11r"
      },
      "source": [
        "Let's see a few summaries. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 8,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 1000
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "QGX3siL1Zk1g",
        "outputId": "628da17c-4576-449b-acbc-cee319d98b52"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Case ID: 570526\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/wash/97/657/\n",
            "Lake Dell avenue and East Alder street, both within the city of\n",
            "Seattle, form what is commonly known as Lake Dell drive. East Alder\n",
            "street forms the east end of Lake Dell drive, and runs approximately\n",
            "east and west and intersects Erie street and Lakeside avenue. East\n",
            "Alder street, from Erie street to Lakeside avenue, descends at a grade\n",
            "of twelve per cent. The planking at the intersection point was,\n",
            "according to the contention of the respondent, left broken, rough, and\n",
            "uneven, and there was a hole about fifty feet in length, from six to\n",
            "eight inches in depth, and one and one-half to two feet in width,\n",
            "which, at the time of the accident, was full of water. In getting to\n",
            "and from this landing it is necessary for trucks to use the Lake Dell\n",
            "drive and Lakeside avenue. He made the run on the right side of the\n",
            "street without difficulty until he came to the East Alder street\n",
            "section of the drive, at a point a distance of about two hundred and\n",
            "thirty feet west of Erie street. At this point, to use the\n",
            "respondent’s own language: “I was going down what is known as the Lake\n",
            "Dell drive plank road, and had on a load of feed, and it was pretty\n",
            "slippery, and I held the truck under control all right until I came\n",
            "down to this last steep pitch on East Alder street, and it seemed to\n",
            "be steeper there than any other part of the street and my brakes\n",
            "failed to hold.” He further testified that the brakes in the car had\n",
            "been renewed that day and were in good condition, and that they failed\n",
            "to hold because of the slippery condition of the steep descent to the\n",
            "intersection of Lakeside avenue. Walters ran down East Alder street\n",
            "and, at the time he came to the intersection with Lakeside' avenue, he\n",
            "estimates that he was going at a rate of speed of from nine to eleven\n",
            "miles an hour. It is also to be noted that, as to the question of\n",
            "notice, the city did not heed the requests to repair the street, made\n",
            "by the witness Helgeson a few weeks before this accident. 55, 96 Pac.\n",
            "531, the court adopts as its view of a correct statement of the law\n",
            "the following instruction which was approved by the Kansas court of\n",
            "appeals in the case of Falls Township in Chase County v. In the claim\n",
            "of damage presented to the city, the negligence of the city in\n",
            "permitting the defective planking, the hole in the intersection of\n",
            "East Alder street and Lakeside avenue, and the precipitous grade from\n",
            "Erie street to Lakeside, was set forth. No mention was made of the wet\n",
            "and slippery condition of the steep grade on East Alder street at the\n",
            "time of the accident, and that condition was shown, over obj ections\n",
            "by appellant, at the trial. 561, 97 Pac. 658, Judge Dunbar, in\n",
            "discussing the sufficiency of the description in a claim filed with\n",
            "the city of Seattle under the same charter provision here in question,\n",
            "says:\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 2205880\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/iowa/164/324/\n",
            "Evans, J. The only question presented for our consideration is whether\n",
            "there was sufficient evidence as to the proximate cause of the injury\n",
            "to sustain the verdict. The accident happened on the intersection of\n",
            "Lane street and Independence avenue. Independence avenue, including\n",
            "the intersection, was paved. The plaintiff approached the intersection\n",
            "along Lane street from the north, riding upon a motorcycle. Lane\n",
            "street was not paved, but was covered with sand, which retarded the\n",
            "progress of the motorcycle. The plaintiff came upon the pavement while\n",
            "moving slowly upon his motorcycle, and started west along Independence\n",
            "avenue, when he struck some obstruction which stopped his wheel and\n",
            "threw him forward upon the pavement. There was at that place a pipe\n",
            "which protruded through the pavement two and a half inches above the\n",
            "surface. It was the only obstruction discoverable. When the motorcycle\n",
            "was picked up after the accident, its front wheel was close to such\n",
            "pipe. The action is predicated upon the theory that such protruding\n",
            "pipe was the obstruction which caused the accident. The one contention\n",
            "of appellant is that the proof at this point is insufficient to submit\n",
            "to the jury. The plaintiff testified as follows: “As soon as I got on\n",
            "the asphalt pavement, I went to turn and go up Independence avenue,\n",
            "and as I turned something caught in the wheel and threw me. After I\n",
            "was thrown, made an examination, and there was nothing in the street\n",
            "which, could have thrown me off except the pipe in the street.” On c\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 33562\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/mass/219/88/\n",
            "c. 51, § 18, to recover for personal injuries received by the\n",
            "plaintiff by reason of falling upon a sidewalk on the northerly side\n",
            "of George Street, a public way in the defendant city. The plaintiff\n",
            "fell, upon the sidewalk at a point eight or ten feet from the\n",
            "intersection of George Street with the west line of Main Street, and\n",
            "nearly at the foot of the grade. The sidewalk was constructed with a\n",
            "slight depression in the centre running up the hill, for the purpose\n",
            "of conveying away water which came upon the sidewalk. There was\n",
            "evidence to show that from Main Street for the first ten feet the\n",
            "sidewalk was of concrete, and that in the surface of the walk\n",
            "cobblestones of different sizes were embedded, some of which had been\n",
            "worn smooth and some projected a little way above the surface, — one\n",
            "of them, a large cobblestone, standing up one inch above the surface\n",
            "of the walk. The evidence further showed that an iron railing had been\n",
            "constructed along the outer edge of the walk; that it was erected in\n",
            "the year 1896, by order of the city council, “as an assistance in\n",
            "making the ascent or descent of that street in times of snow or ice.”\n",
            "This railing, when originally erected, extended along the walk from\n",
            "the intersection of George Street with Main Street, but at the time of\n",
            "the accident the lower end of it, for a distance of four or five feet,\n",
            "had been removed. The plaintiff testified that she had hold of this\n",
            "railing as she descended the hill, and when she reached the end of the\n",
            "railing she started to cross to the northerly side of the walk,\n",
            "stepped upon an accumulation of ice, and fell, receiving the injuries\n",
            "complained of. 1. The city was under no legal obligation to erect the\n",
            "railing or to maintain it afterwards; and the fact that a portion of\n",
            "it had been removed did not create any liability on the part of the\n",
            "defendant. 51, § 18, but apparently was constructed for the\n",
            "convenience and assistance of travellers upon the street and not in\n",
            "the performance of a legal duty. It is plain that the removal of a\n",
            "portion of it did not constitute a defect in the way. 2. The plaintiff\n",
            "contends that the sidewalk was defective by reason of the depression\n",
            "caused by the channel in the centre. The immediate cause of the\n",
            "plaintiff’s fall was the presence of slippery ice upon the walk at the\n",
            "place where she attempted to cross over. 51, § 19, a city or town is\n",
            "not liable for an injury received upon a way by reason of snow or ice\n",
            "thereon, “if the place at which the injury was sustained was at the\n",
            "time of the accident otherwise reasonably safe and convenient for\n",
            "travellers.” One Thompson, a civil engineer, testified that he made\n",
            "measurements of the walk about three years after the accident, and\n",
            "that “the width of the sidewalk between the buttress and the south\n",
            "edge\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 4782690\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/va/118/612/\n",
            "When he reached the intersection of Perry and Fifteenth streets, his\n",
            "car collided with one of the city wagons, resulting in what, at the\n",
            "time of the accident, appeared to be a slight bruise and abrasion not\n",
            "larger than a five-cent piece on the top of one of his feet. These\n",
            "allegations of negligence were vigorously denied by the defendant\n",
            "city, and the contention earnestly made that the accident was the\n",
            "result of the negligence of those in charge of the street car, in\n",
            "running the same at an excessive rate of speed, and in failing to keep\n",
            "a lookout, which would have disclosed the approáeh of the wagon to\n",
            "Perry street in ample time for the car to have come to a full stop and\n",
            "avoided the collision with the city’s wagon. At the request of the\n",
            "city, and over the objection of the plaintiff, the court instructed\n",
            "the jury, in substance, that they must find for the defendant; that\n",
            "the city could not be held liable for the negligence of the wagon\n",
            "driver, because, at the time of the accident, he was engaged in the\n",
            "discharge of a governmental function. The weight of authority sustains\n",
            "the view that the work which the city was doing in the instant case\n",
            "was not of such a character as to exempt it from liability for the\n",
            "negligent acts of its servants' and employees. In grading and\n",
            "improving McDonough street the city was not discharging a governmental\n",
            "function, but was merely performing a ministerial duty which afforded\n",
            "it no immunity from liability for its negligence. 5431,-5433, it is\n",
            "said “that a municipality acts ministerially in constructing and\n",
            "repairing public improvements or work, including streets, and hence is\n",
            "liable to persons injured by negligence in the performance of such\n",
            "duties, and this is true notwithstanding the improvements are a public\n",
            "benefit, except, perhaps, where a building is being constructed for\n",
            "public use, such.as a courthouse or the like. So it has been held in\n",
            "Missouri, a municipality is liable for the acts of its servant while\n",
            "repairing streets, in assaulting a traveler in the line of his duty,\n",
            "on the theory that the repair of streets is not a governmental duty.”\n",
            "S.) 632, which holds that the duty of a city to keep its streets in\n",
            "repair is not a governmental hut a ministerial duty, and that the city\n",
            "is liable to a pedestrian negligently run down and injured by its\n",
            "superintendent of streets while driving an automobile in the\n",
            "performance of his duty. 294, where Judge Riely, speaking for this\n",
            "court, points out very clearly the distinction between the exercise of\n",
            "those governmental and discretionary functions for which a city is not\n",
            "liable, and the negligent performance of ministerial duties for which\n",
            "it is liable. We are of opinion that in grading and improving\n",
            "McDonough street and hauling the surplus earth therefrom to a place of\n",
            "deposit elsewhere, the city of Richmond was not exercising a\n",
            "governmental function, but was performing a ministerial duty, and that\n",
            "it would be liable for an injury resulting from the negligent\n",
            "performance of such duty.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 1624903\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/mo-app/167/547/\n",
            "Plaintiff sued the city of St. Joseph, a city of the second class, to'\n",
            "recover damages fol personal injuries she alleges were caused by the\n",
            "negligence of defendant. The cause is here on the appeal of defendant\n",
            "from a judgment of $500, recovered by plaintiff in the circuit court.\n",
            "On her return home from a visit to a neighbor, plaintiff fell into a\n",
            "hole or gully made by the erosion of surface water near an intake the\n",
            "city maintained at the intersection of Eighteenth and Belle streets\n",
            "and sustained the injuries of which she complains. Eighteenth street\n",
            "runs north and south, Belle street east and west. There was a board\n",
            "sidewalk on the east side of Eighteenth street which was used by most\n",
            "of the pedestrians traveling on that street. Most of such travel on\n",
            "Belle street was along the sidewalk space on the south side where\n",
            "there was a better path, especially in wet weather; than that on the\n",
            "opposite side. The house where plaintiff had been calling was on the\n",
            "north side of Belle street, two doors west of Eighteenth street.\n",
            "Plaintiff lived on the east side of the latter street a block or more\n",
            "north of Belle street. She left the premises by the front exit and,\n",
            "reaching a path in the sidewalk space on the north side of Belle\n",
            "street, proceeded • eastward along that path to the intersection of\n",
            "Eighteenth street intending to cross over to the east side of. that\n",
            "street and to go thence north along the sidewalk to -her home. The\n",
            "city had extended its sewer system along these streets and had put in\n",
            "an intake at the northwest corner of the intersection at a point just\n",
            "outside the curb line, in what would have been the gutter had the\n",
            "streets been paved: The place was on the side of á long hill, the\n",
            "drainage was towards the south and east, and in wet weather a large\n",
            "volume of water flowed to the intake from the north along the west\n",
            "side of Eighteenth street and from the west along the north side of\n",
            "Belle street. A deep hole or gully had been made by such surface water\n",
            "just north of the intake and in Eighteenth street and the gully was in\n",
            "the line of the path on the north side of Belle street. The evidence\n",
            "relating to' the use made by pedestrians of the path in question\n",
            "disclose that there were four residences on the north side of Belle\n",
            "street in the block just west-of Eighteenth and that there was a\n",
            "public school on Belle street several blocks west of this place. As a\n",
            "rule pedestrians used the path on the opposite side of the street, but\n",
            "in dry weather the people living' on the north side of the street and\n",
            "school children sometimes used the path on that side. At any rate,\n",
            "there was enough travel to make a well-defined pathway which, of\n",
            "itself, disclosed the fact that the sidewalk space on that side of the\n",
            "street was being continuously used as a public passageway.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "for case in gpe_cases_old[:5]:\n",
        "  summarize_case(case)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "Ep8qjbLmrPwO"
      },
      "source": [
        "I then read through these summaries and removed cases that seemed irrelevant. For example, I removed any criminal cases, boating-related cases, or cases that did not involve a geopolitical entity. The below files contain only the cases that remained after this step. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 9,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 34
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "2pi9ZQ9bT79n",
        "outputId": "657584ad-3d06-4fd1-e7a3-1ee011fe684a"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "data": {
            "text/plain": [
              "'gpe_cases_new_v1.jsonl'"
            ]
          },
          "execution_count": 9,
          "metadata": {
            "tags": []
          },
          "output_type": "execute_result"
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Load revised cases into local memory \n",
        "gpe_cases_old_file_v1 = 'https://ketchupduck.s3.amazonaws.com/gpe_cases_old_v1.jsonl'\n",
        "wget.download(gpe_cases_old_file_v1)\n",
        "gpe_cases_new_file_v1 = 'https://ketchupduck.s3.amazonaws.com/gpe_cases_new_v1.jsonl'\n",
        "wget.download(gpe_cases_new_file_v1)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 11,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 102
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "d7cedob-UB2z",
        "outputId": "a8a29557-8195-45fb-805a-220fa04cc754"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Cases from 1910-20:\n",
            "Number of cases: 53\n",
            "\n",
            "Cases from 2008-18:\n",
            "Number of cases: 171\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "print(\"Cases from 1910-20:\")\n",
        "gpe_cases_old_v1 = load_case_body(gpe_cases_old_file_v1.split('/')[-1])\n",
        "print(\"\\nCases from 2008-18:\")\n",
        "gpe_cases_new_v1 = load_case_body(gpe_cases_new_file_v1.split('/')[-1])"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "ItaQM7bJ620-"
      },
      "source": [
        "Now I can compare randomly-chosen old cases to randomly-chosen new cases. "
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "code",
      "execution_count": 12,
      "metadata": {
        "colab": {
          "base_uri": "https://localhost:8080/",
          "height": 1000
        },
        "colab_type": "code",
        "id": "ZfuZep-7Y2wT",
        "outputId": "a0eaeff4-77b5-4b4e-e0f6-bc17c0a3f46c"
      },
      "outputs": [
        {
          "name": "stdout",
          "output_type": "stream",
          "text": [
            "Summaries of randomly-chosen cases from 1910-20:\n",
            "Case ID: 2170272\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/iowa/146/624/\n",
            "Prior to the injuries complained of, surface water falling upon said\n",
            "lots and upon parts of West Walnut and West Fifteenth streets flowed\n",
            "naturally and uninterruptedly across plaintiff’s lots and found exit\n",
            "at the southwest corner thereof, and, by, means of a ditch along the\n",
            "railway embankment running westward, the surface water coming from the\n",
            "lot ran westward until it came to a drain tile or pipe passing through\n",
            "the railroad embankment, from whence it ran across the right of way\n",
            "and upon the bottoms south of. The petition charges that “said\n",
            "embankment was negligently and carelessly constructed, in that it\n",
            "hindered, obstructed, and prevented access to plaintiff’s property\n",
            "aforesaid and to the alley thereto adjacent; in that it cut off and\n",
            "destroyed the natural drainage and outlet to the surface water\n",
            "aforesaid; in that it dammed up the ditch and filled the drain pipe or\n",
            "tile above described, and created a reservoir or large pond of\n",
            "stagnant water on and about the plaintiff’s premises; and in that the\n",
            "defendant made no provision of any kind, either temporary or\n",
            "permanent, for the escape of said water, or for diverting the flow\n",
            "thereof before the same entered plaintiff’s property, although the\n",
            "defendant at (he time well knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable\n",
            "care, should have known, the topography of the land, the elevation of\n",
            "said lot, the outlet of said natural water course and drainage, and\n",
            "the damage to plaintiff’s property that would inevitably result from\n",
            "its failure to provide an escape for said water.” The case presents\n",
            "the old, yet ever new, question of the liability of a city or\n",
            "municipal corporation for damming up or otherwise obstructing the\n",
            "flow' of surface water to the injury and damage of abutting property,\n",
            "especially where that property is below the established gx'ade. It has\n",
            "been broadly asserted in many cases that, as surface water is a common\n",
            "enemy, a city may bring its streets to grade by filling or excavating,\n",
            "and thus obstx’uct or impede the flow of surface water, damming it\n",
            "back, and causing it to collect upon abutting property without\n",
            "liability for damages, particularly where the abutting or adjoining\n",
            "property is below the established grade. In other jurisdictions where\n",
            "the civil law obtains, the rule as to individuals is exactly the\n",
            "opposite, and the lower proprietor is held liable for damming bach and\n",
            "obstructing the natural flow of surface water. But even where the\n",
            "common-law rule obtains, individuals, railway companies, and cities\n",
            "have been held liable for the obstruction and damming up of surface\n",
            "water. 632), a Minnesota case, it was held that, although the common-\n",
            "law doctrine obtained in that state, one could not unnecessarily or\n",
            "unreasonably use his own property to the injury of another, and that,\n",
            "while at common law surface water is a common enemy which each owner\n",
            "may get rid of as'best he may, he can not carelessly, negligently, and\n",
            "unnecessarily injure his neighbor in so doing.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 92162\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/del/26/253/\n",
            "There are several averments of negligence in the plaintiff’s\n",
            "declaration, including the running of the car which injured the\n",
            "plaintiff at an improper and dangerous rate of speed, running said car\n",
            "without giving any or suitable warning of its approach, and the\n",
            "failure to use reasonable care to stop said car after the dangerous\n",
            "position of the plaintiff was seen, or by the exercise of reasonable\n",
            "care could have been seen, by the servant of the defendant having\n",
            "control of the car. The defendant denies that it, or its servants in\n",
            "charge of the car, were guilty of any negligence from which the\n",
            "injuries complained of were inflicted; but, on the contrary, insists\n",
            "that its servants were, at the time of the accident, in the exercise\n",
            "of reasonable and proper care; and that the accident was occasioned\n",
            "solely by the negligence of the plaintiff herself. It is also admitted\n",
            "that there was a double track at the place of the accident, and that\n",
            "the company were running both the east and west bound cars, and doing\n",
            "so, under authority of the law; that the accident occurred at Fourth\n",
            "and Harrison streets, and it is also admitted that said streets are\n",
            "public streets of the City of Wilmington. [6] A pure accident, without\n",
            "any negligence on the part of the defendant, is not actionable, and if\n",
            "the jury should believe from all the evidence that such was the\n",
            "character of the plaintiff’s collision with the defendant’s car, it\n",
            "would come under the head of unavoidable accident, and the plaintiff\n",
            "cannot recover. [7] The term ordinary care and diligence, when\n",
            "applied, to the management of electric cars in motion may be\n",
            "understood to import all the care, circumspection, prudence and\n",
            "discretion, which the particular circumstances of the place and\n",
            "occasion require of the servants of the defendant company; and this\n",
            "will be increased or diminished as the ordinary liability to danger,\n",
            "accident and injury is increased or diminished in the movement and\n",
            "operation of such cars. It is the duty of the company to see that its\n",
            "servants in charge of the cars use reasonable care in operating them;\n",
            "that the cars move at a reasonable rate of speed; that they slow up,\n",
            "or stop if need be, where danger is imminent and could, by the\n",
            "exercise of reasonable care, be seen or known in time to prevent\n",
            "accident; and that proper warning be given of the approach of the car\n",
            "at a crossing on the public highway. The general rule is that the\n",
            "person in the management of the car, and the person approaching a car\n",
            "or crossing a railway track, are bound to the reasonable use of their\n",
            "senses of sight and hearing for the prevention of accident; and also\n",
            "to the exercise of all such reasonable caution as ordinarily careful\n",
            "and prudent persons would exercise' in like circumstances.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 398997\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/ohio-cc-ns/21/273/\n",
            "This is a proceeding in error to reverse the judgment of the court of\n",
            "common pleas in sustaining a demurrer of the defend ants, the\n",
            "commissioners of Hamilton county, to an amended petition of plaintiff,\n",
            "and dismissing said defendants at tlie plaintiff’s costs. Section\n",
            "2408, General Code, does impose a liability on the commissioners of a\n",
            "county in their official capacity for damages received by reason of-\n",
            "their negligence or carelessness in not keeping any public, state or\n",
            "county road or bridge in proper repair. Now it is contended by counsel\n",
            "for defendants in error that the amended petition of plaintiff is\n",
            "fatally defective and open to demurrer, because of the failure to aver\n",
            "first that the county road in question was an improved road; secondly,\n",
            "that the board of commissioners had notice of the defective condition,\n",
            "either actual or constructive; thirdly, that it fails to aver that the\n",
            "ditch or trench complained of was in the traveled portion of the\n",
            "roadway; and, fourthly, that the doctrine of respondeat superior does\n",
            "not apply to negligent acts of an independent contractor performing\n",
            "work on the public roads under contract with the county commissioners,\n",
            "and that although the amended petition fails to aver that the\n",
            "defendant Niehaus was acting as an independent contractor,\n",
            "nevertheless the court must take judicial notice of the fact that,\n",
            "under the statutes, the commissioners had no power or authority to\n",
            "make improvements or repairs of a county road except by letting the\n",
            "work to an independent con tractor, and therefore Niehaus must have\n",
            "been employed as an independent contractor for whose acts of\n",
            "negligence in the prosecution of the work the commissioners are not\n",
            "responsible, assuming that he was negligent and that his negligence\n",
            "was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries-. As to the first\n",
            "contention of counsel for the commissioners, the court believe it is\n",
            "sufficiently answered by calling attention to the language of the\n",
            "statute, Section 2408, which imposes a liability on the commissioners\n",
            "in their official capacity for damages received by reason of their\n",
            "negligence or carelessness in- not keeping in proper repair any\n",
            "public, state or county road or bridge. It is averred that the\n",
            "defendants were, at the time of the injuries sustained by plaintiff,\n",
            "engaged in improving and repairing said road, and this together with\n",
            "the averment that it was- a county road under the jurisdiction and\n",
            "control of the commissioners, together with the language of Section\n",
            "2408, General Code, appears to us to be sufficient to make the amended\n",
            "petition proof against the demurrer as to this point urged.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 8874155\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/utah/46/616/\n",
            "The plaintiff, in substance, testified that on the 1st day of March,\n",
            "1914, at about 11 o’clock at night, and while it was raining rather\n",
            "hard, she left the theater on Third South street, which was located a\n",
            "block north and a little west from where the accident occurred; that\n",
            "from there she went west to Main street, thence south on Main to\n",
            "Fourth South street, thence east on the north side of said street to\n",
            "the middle of the block, at which point she turned south to cross that\n",
            "street in order to reach her home, which was immediately south on a\n",
            "side street running north and south; that when she reached the street\n",
            "car track in the center of Fourth South street running east and west\n",
            "she discovered that she could not cross to the south side of that\n",
            "street without getting her feet wet on account of the water in and\n",
            "near the south gutter on Fourth South street; that she then turned\n",
            "back to the north side of the street and walked down on that side to\n",
            "the west side of State street, and on reaching that point she crossed\n",
            "over on the west side of State street, and when she arrived at the\n",
            "point of the large ai’row marked “b” on the plat she deflected to the\n",
            "west, as indicated by the curving of the arrow, and stepped into the\n",
            "gutter at the point marked “a” on the plat. On the part of the city it\n",
            "was shown without conflict just what the width of the concrete\n",
            "sidewalks were at the point in question as indicated on the plat; that\n",
            "the paving, the gutters, the covering thereon, and the sidewalk were\n",
            "all constructed in accordance with a plan prepared and recommended by\n",
            "a competent civil engineer, which plan was duly adopted and followed\n",
            "by the city in improving its streets and in constructing the gutters,\n",
            "sidewalks, etc., including those in question here. It will thus be\n",
            "seen that the court submitted the whole question respecting the\n",
            "construction of the gutters and coverings thereon to the jury, and\n",
            "allowed them to determine what, in their judgment, would constitute\n",
            "proper gutters and a sufficient covering for them for pedestrians to\n",
            "pass over safely, although there was no allegation nor proof that the\n",
            "plan adopted by the city as aforesaid was insufficient or defective,\n",
            "or that it was negligently or defectively executed in any particular.\n",
            "It has frequently been held by the courts — indeed, so far as we are\n",
            "aware, there is little, if any, diversity of opinion upon the\n",
            "proposition — that a municipality may adopt and follow a plan prepared\n",
            "by a competent civil engineer in making public improvements, including\n",
            "the paving and guttering of streets and in constructing sidewalks and\n",
            "cross-walks, and that the question of whether such plans are\n",
            "sufficient or proper cannot be reviewed by the courts, except upon the\n",
            "grounds pointed out by us in the case of Morris v.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 4727628\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/va/123/682/\n",
            "1. Was the city guilty of such negligence in not providing a hand-rail\n",
            "on the northern side of the bridge that it was liable in damages to\n",
            "the plaintiff for his injury, if such negligence was the proximate\n",
            "cause thereof? The question of fact as to whether the city has\n",
            "discharged that duty was submitted to the jury by plaintiff’s\n",
            "instruction No. 1, above quoted. The fact that the defendant city\n",
            "allowed the hand-rail to remain off the bridge for a period of about\n",
            "three weeks before the accident, without any excuse being shown\n",
            "therefor, was suf fieient evidence to warrant the jury in finding the\n",
            "city guilty of negligent breach of its duty aforesaid. From the\n",
            "statement of facts preceding this opinion it is manifest that this\n",
            "question must be answered in the affirmative, unless the plaintiff was\n",
            "guilty of contributory negligence, which would bar his recovery. There\n",
            "being a conflict in the testimony on this subject, as shown in the\n",
            "above statement of facts, ordinarily the verdict of the jury would\n",
            "admittedly conclude the question. The city, however, invokes against\n",
            "such a conclusion the well established rule that “courts are not\n",
            "required to believe that which is contrary to human experience and the\n",
            "laws of nature, or which they judicially know to be incredible;” and\n",
            "the following cases are cited on the point. feet of the distance of\n",
            "the light away, which was left to be fixed by the jury from\n",
            "conflicting estimates of it; and the effect of the fact that the\n",
            "plaintiff as he came upon the bridge was faced with a light from\n",
            "within Allen’s store which, shone in his eyes and thus affected his\n",
            "vision—all of which were facts or circumstances for the consideration\n",
            "of the jury, and which they, having viewed the scene of the accident\n",
            "at the same hour of night and under conditions of cloudiness as nearly\n",
            "alike those which existed on the night of the accident as were found\n",
            "practicable, were in a better position than this court can be to weigh\n",
            "and consider. The assignments of error based upon the action of the\n",
            "trial court with respect to the instructions raise the following\n",
            "points for our consideration. 4. It is urged by the city that\n",
            "plaintiff’s instruction No. 1 required of it a higher degree of care\n",
            "than the law imposed, in that it used the word “all” as descriptive of\n",
            "the “reasonable care and precaution” which the instruction mentions.\n",
            "It is used only in connection with that portion of the instruction,\n",
            "which refers to the breach of duty of the city; and while it does\n",
            "emphasize the statement made in that connection, it adds nothing to\n",
            "the degree of care which the law imposed upon the defendant. But the\n",
            "instruction under consideration does not base the plaintiff’s right of\n",
            "recovery upon the absolute duty of the city to make the bridge “safe.\"\n",
            "It does not, indeed, instruct the jury on the subject of the duty of\n",
            "the city in the premises.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "------***********------\n",
            "\n",
            "\n",
            "Summaries of randomly-chosen cases from 2008-18:\n",
            "Case ID: 4306156\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/f-supp-3d/155/218/\n",
            "As he approached an intersection controlled by a traffic light, a\n",
            "United States Postal Service (“USPS”) truck was waiting to make a left\n",
            "turn across the lane in which plaintiff was traveling. The truck\n",
            "driver unreasonably proceeded into the intersection and into\n",
            "plaintiffs lane, forcing him to take emergency evasive action; he lost\n",
            "control, was hurled from his motorcycle, sustaining serious injuries.\n",
            "Plaintiff was traveling north on Louisiana Avenue when he approached\n",
            "the intersection with Twin Pines Drive. Based on the nature of\n",
            "plaintiffs injuries, the place where the vehicles came to rest, the\n",
            "damage to the motorcycle, the testimony of defendant’s expert, Dr.\n",
            "Jeffrey Ketchman, and the other evidence, the plaintiff was traveling\n",
            "dangerously fast' when he entered the intersection and he was not\n",
            "keeping a proper lookout. Ms. Little testified at trial that she\n",
            "turned the wheel of the USPS truck a little to the left, but the truck\n",
            "itself never crossed the center of the intersection. Upon seeing the\n",
            "postal service truck enter the intersection and cross into his lane,\n",
            "plaintiff testified that he took evasive action in order to avoid what\n",
            "he believed would be a collision. As a result, plaintiff testified,\n",
            "the motorcycle fell onto its right side inside the intersection. The\n",
            "nature of plaintiffs injuries, the damage to the motorcycle, the\n",
            "testimony of plaintiff and the testimony of a neutral witness, all\n",
            "support the conclusion that the motorcycle fell inside the\n",
            "intersection. Plaintiff contends that when the motorcycle fell, it\n",
            "trapped his right leg underneath it, causing a significant injury to\n",
            "his right knee and left shoulder. Under the FTCA, the liability of the\n",
            "United States to a plaintiff for negligence is determined “in\n",
            "accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission\n",
            "occurred.” 28 U.S.C. “To prevail on a claim of negligence under New\n",
            "York law, a plaintiff must establish: ‘(1) that a duty of care was\n",
            "owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant\n",
            "breached that duty; (3) that the defendant’s breach was a proximate\n",
            "cause of the plaintiffs injuries; and (4) that plaintiff was damaged.’\n",
            "” Brown, 2010 WL 1049571, at *13 (quoting Crews v. New York law\n",
            "imposes on operators of motor vehicles a duty of reasonable care\n",
            "taking into account the circumstances of the situation. “This\n",
            "longstanding duty requires drivers to [1] maintain a reasonably safe\n",
            "rate of speed, [2] have the automobile [or motorcycle] under\n",
            "reasonable control, [3] to keep a proper lookout under the\n",
            "circumstances then existing to see and be aware of what was in their\n",
            "view, and [4] to use reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid\n",
            "an accident.” Goldstein, 9 F.Supp.2d at 186. The evidence shows that\n",
            "he breached this duty by failing to keep a proper lookout and by\n",
            "proceeding into the intersection at a rate of speed that was unsafe in\n",
            "light of the circumstances. But for plaintiffs breach of his duty of\n",
            "care, he would have been able to safely stop his motorcycle.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 12295149\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/ad3d/156/1027/\n",
            "Lynch, J. Appeals (1) from a decision of the Court of Claims\n",
            "(Bruening, J.), entered June 10, 2016, following a bifurcated trial in\n",
            "favor of defendant on the issue of liability, and (2) from the\n",
            "judgment entered thereon. This negligence claim arises out of a motor\n",
            "vehicle accident that occurred along State Route 96 in the Village of\n",
            "Owego, Tioga County on May 1, 2008. Just prior to the accident,\n",
            "claimant Paul W. Prasarn (hereinafter Prasarn) was proceeding\n",
            "southbound on his 2004 Suzuki motorcycle. Claimant Visut Prasarn,\n",
            "claimant’s father, was following closely behind. The accident occurred\n",
            "when Prasarn’s motorcycle collided with an automobile driven by\n",
            "Michael Armour that was exiting from a thrift store driveway on the\n",
            "west side of Route 96. Armour was endeavoring to make a left-hand turn\n",
            "to proceed northbound on Route 96. In this negligence action, Prasarn\n",
            "seeks damages as a result of the severe injuries he sustained in the\n",
            "collision—he was left paralyzed from the waist down—and his father\n",
            "seeks to recover for emotional distress as he witnessed the accident.\n",
            "Claimants essentially maintain that defendant was negligent in failing\n",
            "to relocate obstructions that blocked the northbound view of a driver\n",
            "at the stop line leading out of the thrift store driveway and in\n",
            "failing to trim trees and brush from the western side of Route 96\n",
            "along a curve north of the driveway that claimants contend limited the\n",
            "sight distance of both drivers. In a 1995 study, defendant recommended\n",
            "cutting the trees and brush and did a further review of the Route 96\n",
            "driveway intersection in 2005. There is no evidence documenting that\n",
            "any such maintenance work was performed. Following a trial on\n",
            "liability only, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim, finding both\n",
            "that defendant was not negligent in maintaining Route 96 and that any\n",
            "negligence on defendant’s part was not a proximate cause of the\n",
            "accident. Claimants appeal from the decision of the Court of Claims\n",
            "and the judgment entered thereon. We affirm. In reviewing a Court of\n",
            "Claims verdict, we have “broad authority to independently review the\n",
            "probative weight of the evidence,” while according “appropriate\n",
            "deference to the court’s credibility determinations and factual\n",
            "findings” (Ball v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2013]\n",
            "[internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Where, as here, the\n",
            "claimant has no independent recollection of how the accident happened,\n",
            "the claimant still has the burden of proving that defendant’s\n",
            "negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident, but the\n",
            "factfinder is permitted greater latitude in drawing an inference of\n",
            "negligence (see PJI 1:62). For his part, Prasarn’s father testified\n",
            "that he was traveling at the 40 mile-per-hour speed limit, 40 to 50\n",
            "feet behind his\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 12303398\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/ad3d/151/1941/\n",
            "Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F.\n",
            "O’Donnell, J.), entered September 23, 2016. The order, insofar as\n",
            "appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendants for summary\n",
            "judgment and granted in part the motion of plaintiffs for summary\n",
            "judgment. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is\n",
            "unanimously modified on the law by denying plaintiffs’ motion in its\n",
            "entirety and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.\n",
            "Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for\n",
            "injuries sustained by Jessica M. Perkins (plaintiff) when her vehicle\n",
            "collided with a police vehicle operated by defendant Robert L. Danner,\n",
            "III, a police officer employed by defendant City of Buffalo. At the\n",
            "time of the accident, Danner was responding to an emergency call\n",
            "without his emergency lights or siren activated, and he ran a red\n",
            "light at an intersection. As plaintiff entered the intersection with a\n",
            "green light, her vehicle struck the rear end of Danner’s vehicle.\n",
            "Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issues of, inter alia,\n",
            "negligence and proximate cause, and defendants cross-moved for summary\n",
            "judgment dismissing the complaint because, among other things, Danner\n",
            "did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others. Supreme\n",
            "Court determined that ordinary negligence principles were applicable\n",
            "to this case, granted those parts of plaintiffs’ motion seeking\n",
            "summary judgment on the issues of negligence and proximate cause, and\n",
            "denied defendants’ cross motion. We agree with defendants that the\n",
            "court should have applied the reckless disregard standard of care to\n",
            "the facts of this case. At the time of the collision, Danner was\n",
            "operating an authorized emergency vehicle while involved in an\n",
            "emergency operation (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 101, 1104 [a]),\n",
            "and his\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 12451669\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/wash-app/194/759/\n",
            "¶2 We hold that the superior court erred by (1) excluding most of the\n",
            "bicycle expert’s testimony under ER 702, (2) granting summary judgment\n",
            "regarding the City’s duty because there are genuine issues of material\n",
            "fact as to whether the City had constructive notice of the roadway\n",
            "defect, and (3) finding that implied primary assumption of the risk\n",
            "barred O’Neill from any recovery. In his deposition, Dorsey stated\n",
            "that the City maintains the municipal road ways, including the\n",
            "intersection of Sidney Avenue and Kitsap Street, where O’Neill fell.\n",
            "After 2008, when Dorsey became public works director, the City has not\n",
            "received any complaints about the road surface conditions at the\n",
            "intersection of Sidney Avenue and Kitsap Street, and there are no\n",
            "maintenance records of any repairs at the intersection. Before her\n",
            "accident, O’Neill never filed a complaint about the road conditions at\n",
            "the intersection and was unaware if any other cyclist had complained\n",
            "to the City. ¶14 The superior court found that Couch was qualified\n",
            "under ER 702 “to testify as an expert as to owning and operating a\n",
            "bicycle store, how to fix a bicycle, how to fit a bicycle to the human\n",
            "body, how to train someone in cycling, and specifics on bicycle\n",
            "races.” CP at 143 (Finding of Fact (FF) 4). But the superior court\n",
            "also found that Couch was not qualified as an expert under ER 702 in\n",
            "the fields of “(a) road design or defects, (b) bicycle accident\n",
            "reconstruction, and (c) road signage requirements and how humans\n",
            "visually perceive obvious versus vague signage.” CP at 143 (FF 4).\n",
            "Thus, the superior court excluded Couch as an expert witness because\n",
            "his proffered testimony\" ‘strayfed] beyond’ his ‘area of expertise.’ ”\n",
            "CP at 144 (Conclusion of Law 8) (quoting Hiner v. ¶15 Because it\n",
            "excluded Couch’s opinions, the superior court found that O’Neill\n",
            "failed to rebut the City’s initial showing that there were no genuine\n",
            "issues of material fact. She argued that the photographs of the\n",
            "asphalt patches and defects around the intersection created a genuine\n",
            "issue of material fact as to the City’s notice of the roadway defect,\n",
            "and that the superior court should reconsider its ruling that Couch\n",
            "was not qualified to testify and that O’Neill had assumed the risk of\n",
            "her injuries. ¶17 O’Neill appeals the superior court’s exclusion of\n",
            "her expert witness and its order of summary judgment in the City’s\n",
            "favor. ¶18 O’Neill first argues that the superior court erred when it\n",
            "excluded all of Couch’s declaration regarding the road and the\n",
            "accident. ¶23 Second, paragraphs 17-21, 23, and 30 of Couch’s\n",
            "declaration involved expert opinions regarding a cyclist’s ability to\n",
            "see a roadway defect and the effect of road conditions on the\n",
            "performance of a bicycle. This knowledge, skill, experience, and\n",
            "training qualified Couch as an expert on bicycle riding and the effect\n",
            "of road conditions on cyclists. There is no indication in the record\n",
            "that Couch is qualified to provide expert opinions on these issues,\n",
            "and we hold that the superior court did not err in excluding that\n",
            "testimony.\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n",
            "Case ID: 12416411\n",
            "Full case text is at: https://cite.case.law/conn-app/142/843/\n",
            "The defendant claims that (1) the plaintiffs action should have been\n",
            "dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the allegations in the\n",
            "plaintiffs complaint were insufficient to state a cause of action\n",
            "under § 13a-144 and (2) it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law\n",
            "because the evidence demonstrated that the alleged highway defects\n",
            "were not the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. In his\n",
            "one count amended complaint, dated August 3, 2009, the plaintiff\n",
            "alleged in relevant part that on July 29, 2005, he “was operating his\n",
            "motor vehicle easterly along Route 44, a public highway, in Avon,\n",
            "Connecticut, when a series of collisions occurred when a truck owned\n",
            "by American Crushing and Recycling, LLC, careened down Avon Mountain\n",
            "from east to west, left the west bound travel path, experienced\n",
            "exploded brakes and crashed into multiple vehicles including the\n",
            "plaintiffs as it traversed and descended the 10 [percent] slope down\n",
            "Avon Mountain on Route 44 in Avon, Connecticut.” The plaintiff alleged\n",
            "that the resulting collision caused him injury. “(a) in that they\n",
            "utilized a plan of design, construction and/or repair for the area of\n",
            "Route 44 described above, adopted by the [s]tate of Connecticut and/or\n",
            "its employees, which was totally inadequate, in that it created an\n",
            "unsafe condition; “(b) in that they failed to provide adequate\n",
            "warnings and signage on the downhill grade on Route 44 before the\n",
            "intersection; “(e) in that they failed to have, or failed to have\n",
            "adequate, procedures for maintaining the downhill slope in a safe\n",
            "condition; “(i) in that they failed to train, or properly train,\n",
            "personnel to inspect the roadway so that it could be maintained or\n",
            "properly maintained; “(j) in that they failed to have, or failed to\n",
            "have adequate, procedures for inspecting and maintaining the roadway\n",
            "so as to be safe for vehicular traffic; “(k) in that they failed to\n",
            "have procedures in place so adequate notice could be given to correct\n",
            "unsafe conditions on the roadway or so that the roadway could be\n",
            "closed; “(1) in that they failed to follow procedures which were\n",
            "intended to give adequate notice so that unsafe conditions on the\n",
            "roadway could be corrected, or the roadway closed; “(n) in that they\n",
            "failed to close the road until conditions could be made safe for\n",
            "travel; “(p) in that they failed to properly supervise state agents,\n",
            "servants or employees who were responsible for maintaining the roadway\n",
            "in a safe condition . “(r) [i]n that they failed to maintain a safe\n",
            "and adequate intersection at Deercliff Road and Route 44 . The\n",
            "defendant argued that the plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed on\n",
            "jurisdictional grounds arising from its sovereign immunity because the\n",
            "complaint merely alleged common-law negligence, not the existence of a\n",
            "defect that fell within the scope of § 13a-144. Specifically, the\n",
            "defendant argued that the plaintiff had alleged negligent conduct by\n",
            "the defendant that gave rise to a highway defect, but that the\n",
            "specific allegations in the complaint concerning the absence of\n",
            "certain safe\n",
            "\n",
            "-------\n",
            "\n"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": [
        "# Summarize 5 randomly-chosen old cases\n",
        "print(\"Summaries of randomly-chosen cases from 1910-20:\") \n",
        "for i in range(5):\n",
        "  random_case = random.choice(gpe_cases_old_v1)\n",
        "  summarize_case(random_case)\n",
        "\n",
        "# Summarize 5 randomly-chosen new cases \n",
        "print(\"\\n\\n------***********------\\n\\n\")\n",
        "print(\"Summaries of randomly-chosen cases from 2008-18:\")\n",
        "for i in range(5):\n",
        "  random_case = random.choice(gpe_cases_new_v1)\n",
        "  summarize_case(random_case)"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cell_type": "markdown",
      "metadata": {
        "colab_type": "text",
        "id": "YT9TSm0U8ASr"
      },
      "source": [
        "I am not sure what summaries you see above, since the cases to be summarized are randomly chosen. From what I have read so far, I think that the scope of what governments are supposed to do to prevent road accidents has expanded in the last 100 years. \n",
        "\n",
        "In the cases from 1910-20, the fact patterns often focus on the fact that the government did not properly maintain the surface of the road. For example, in the above five cases, the fact patterns talk about how the road did not have proper drainage (case ID 2170272), the road had a ditch (case ID 398997), and pedestrians could not jump over the street-side gutters safely (case ID 8874155). The other two cases talk about injuries caused by a streetcar, and the city not providing handrails on a bridge. \n",
        "\n",
        "In the cases from 2008-18, the fact patterns often focus on the fact that the government did not properly design the roads, where design encompasses not only the surface of the road, but also the system of signage and lights surrounding it. For example, the fact patterns above talk about how foliage obstructed the drivers' view (case ID 12295149), sidewalk defects being marked by vague signage (case ID 12451669), and allowing trucks to run on steep slopes (case ID 12416411). These fact patterns sometimes also focus on how the government's agents improperly use the roads. For example, the fact patterns above talk about how a USPS truck (case ID 4306156) and a police car (case ID 12303398) caused accidents. \n",
        "\n",
        "The number of cases involving geopolitical entities has increased because governments now must do more to keep people safe on roads. "
      ]
    }
  ]
}