nu:legal Deutsches Recht

Ground a batch of German legal citations against the corpus. Call this BEFORE stating any citation you did not read here. Takes the citation in the form you already hold it — including the court name, the dispositive word and the date a model normally writes around a docket. KEEP THEM IN: the court and the date are used to disambiguate. An Aktenzeichen is unique per court, not nationwide, and 21,

One query over BOTH corpora: federal and Land statutes (lexical, with concept pinning) and court decisions (semantic — natural-language questions work well here and are the better shape for case law). Search both unless you have a reason not to. A term of art often does not appear in the statute that governs it: 'Verzugspauschale' matches no provision (§ 288 BGB says 'Pauschale in Höhe von 40 Eur

The text of one provision, by default as clean Markdown — about a tenth the size of the reader page for the same provision, with no navigation, no scripts and no boilerplate. `law` is the abbreviation as a citation writes it ('BGB', 'DSGVO', 'BDSG 2018', 'RVG'); `ref` is the bare number, with any letter suffix and no § or Art. ('622', '823', '3a', '83'). Aliases resolve, and CASE IS READ: 'LwG' i

Every stored version of one provision, newest first, so you can find out which dates `getNorm(as_of=…)` can actually answer before you ask. Each entry carries `first_observed` (the day the text was first seen here — NOT the Inkrafttreten), `valid_to`, `date_precision` and the law-level `amendment_note`. `at_archive_floor: true` marks the version that was current when mirroring began: its date is

Incoming citation edges. Give EITHER `law` + `ref` (which decisions apply this statute provision) OR `case` (which decisions cite this decision) — exactly one of the two. Results are ranked by citation weight, then court tier, then recency. Read the ranking honestly: for a provision with many EU decisions the first ten can be almost all CJEU, and the German courts appear only further down. If `to

Outgoing citation edges of one decision: the statute provisions it cites (with how often it cites each — that is the Normenkette, weighted) and the decisions it relies on. `treatment` is null on every edge and stays null. Classifying an edge as gefolgt / abgegrenzt / aufgegeben is unbuilt work, and a wrong 'aufgegeben' in a brief is worse than no label at all. Read the citing passage yourself wit

The full text of one decision, split into its paragraphs, each with a permalink you can cite. `rn` is the Randnummer the COURT printed, read out of the decision's own markup. It is never inferred from position: where a document prints no numbers, `rn` is null and stays null. `anchor_basis` is derived per decision — only 'native_numbering' means our anchor and the printed number provably coincide,

Which provisions got a new text recently, newest first — the freshness feed, as JSON. Poll it with `since` set to the newest `observed` you have already processed. `observed` is the day the new text was FIRST SEEN here, which is not necessarily the day it came into force. Say so if you report a date. The window is the last 120 days; the law's own Änderungsverlauf goes further back.

Corpus scope with its holes stated. Call this once when your answer depends on whether an absence is real. Returns totals (laws, provisions, versions, decisions, courts, citation edges), the per-source windows, the count of Aktenzeichen we can prove exist and do not hold, and `limits`: the version-archive floor, the federal scope of the citation graph, what a version date actually means, and why