Indiana Improvements

[Luis-manzur]

This pull request enhances the ind.py scraper to include additional fields for lower court details and judge names, and updates the corresponding test cases to validate these changes.

[flooie]

Small issue here on the title ...

feat(idaho): add new fields for lower court details and judge names i… #1493

this seems like its for Indiana not Idaho

[flooie]

This is not working as expected. take a look at this example I got from the Data and the results

Adding new item:
    case_dates: "2025-01-23"
    case_names: "Estate of Elmer Gordon Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc."
    download_urls: "https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=6Prq4NVaQ75RijbOC2NrHHYSFd2Uxg3A-INdlkTtRZac_o0my9t2-w3VgZ6EdYor0"
    precedential_statuses: "Published"
    blocked_statuses: "False"
    date_filed_is_approximate: "False"
    dispositions: "Reversed and Remanded"
    docket_numbers: "24A-CT-00469"
    judges: "Paul A, III, John G - SR"
    lower_courts: "Vanderburgh Superior Court 1"
    lower_court_numbers: "82D01-2308-CT-003727"
    case_name_shorts: ""

and the JSON

{'additionalCourtCount': 0,
  'argumentUrl': None,
  'caseNumber': '24A-CT-00469',
  'category': 'Civil     ',
  'courtName': 'Court of Appeals',
  'courts': [{'id': 44201721,
              'name': 'Vanderburgh Superior Court 1',
              'number': '82D01-2308-CT-003727'},
             {'id': 44815078,
              'name': 'Court of Appeals',
              'number': '24A-CT-00469'}],
  'date': '1/23/2025',
  'decision': 'Reversed and Remanded',
  'detailsUrl': 'https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/#/vw/CaseSummary/eyJ2Ijp7IkNhc2VUb2tlbiI6ImpvSUNnb240MmZWUmhudEMxRjhxdjVYRURZelo1ZUhweDZYaG5YbFpGTk0xIiwiSGlkZVRvb2xiYXJzIjp0cnVlLCJQQUxvZ28iOmZhbHNlLCJTUkNUIjoiMHRXRFpEMVMyQ3kwYTdUVVJFZHZ3NXBZOG5EVmp6U1NUTUxMSE9qVm81TTEifX0=',
  'id': -971371332,
  'isMemorandum': False,
  'opinion': {'dispCompInstanceId': 9416930,
              'perCuriam': False,
              'result': 'Majority Opinion',
              'votes': [{'dispCompInstanceId': 9416930,
                         'judge': 'Felix, Paul A.',
                         'judgeCode': 106858,
                         'seperateOpinion': False,
                         'voteCode': 71040,
                         'voteRank': 2,
                         'voteValue': 'Concur'},
                        {'dispCompInstanceId': 9416930,
                         'judge': 'Pyle, Rudolph R., III',
                         'judgeCode': 70232,
                         'seperateOpinion': False,
                         'voteCode': 71040,
                         'voteRank': 1,
                         'voteValue': 'Concur'},
                        {'dispCompInstanceId': 9416930,
                         'judge': 'Baker, John G. - SR',
                         'judgeCode': 99074,
                         'seperateOpinion': False,
                         'voteCode': 71039,
                         'voteRank': 0,
                         'voteValue': 'Author'}]},
  'opinionText': 'in an opinion by Judge Baker.',
  'opinionUrl': 'api/Document/Opinion?Id=6Prq4NVaQ75RijbOC2NrHHYSFd2Uxg3A-INdlkTtRZac_o0my9t2-w3VgZ6EdYor0',
  'publishedText': '',
  'style': 'Estate of Elmer Gordon Waggoner\n'
           'v.\n'
           'Anonymous Health System, Inc., et al., et al.',
  'voteText': 'Judge Pyle and Judge Felix concur'},

A couple things jump out. 1 - we can identify the author, so let's slot that into the author field. Then we should be able to identify the judges easily enough. But the parsing on judges is grabbing first names and suffixes.

Also we have an opportunity to grab opinion type - so lets do that as well so we can identify concurrences / dissents / majority opinions etc.

Also - lets update our tests so that if lower court is added, its also incorporated into tests. Here the Ct of Appeals wasnt getting any lower court data I think.

[Luis-manzur]

@flooie back to you

[flooie]

this seems bad

[flooie]

looks like the api query doesnt actually filter for each court and we just iterate over the last 250 between the three courts. lets do better and filter our results this will make our test files better as well

[flooie]

looks like they acknowledge dissents in this JSON but that the document is actually combined. So the dissent I looked up is in teh same document, so we can remove this for now as it is incorrect and will default to combined opinion on CL

[flooie]

docstrings?

[flooie]

lets update our docstrings and remove type but otherwise I think we can merge this

[flooie]

whitespace should be removed

[flooie]

the lower court and lower court number fields are including too much information.

this field should only include the direct court that was appeal from. If it's the Supreme Court it should be the court of appeals in most cases etc.

We shouldnt combined docket numbers and names from the entire appellate chain