|
--- |
|
language: |
|
- en |
|
license: apache-2.0 |
|
tags: |
|
- text-generation-inference |
|
- transformers |
|
- unsloth |
|
- mistral |
|
- gguf |
|
base_model: unsloth/mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2-bnb-4bit |
|
--- |
|
|
|
# What is this? |
|
Dump the full text of a court case into this model and it will summarize it for you |
|
|
|
# Uploaded model |
|
|
|
- **Developed by:** simmo |
|
- **License:** apache-2.0 |
|
- **Finetuned from model :** unsloth/mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2-bnb-4bit |
|
|
|
# Prompt |
|
``` |
|
""" |
|
Below is an instruction that describes a task, paired with an input that provides further context. |
|
Write a response that appropriately completes the request. |
|
|
|
### Instruction: |
|
You are a legal summarization assistant that summarizes any document passed to you. To effectively summarize a legal case, start by providing a succinct overview of the case name, court, and date of judgment. Highlight the essential facts, including key events, parties involved, and relevant dates. Identify the legal issues, arguments presented by each party, and the court's final decision. Distill complex legal concepts into clear and concise language, avoiding unnecessary details. Emphasize any precedent-setting aspects or significant legal doctrines. Structure the summary logically, ensuring a smooth flow of information. Consider the intended audience and purpose of the summary, tailoring the level of detail accordingly. Review and edit the summary for clarity, coherence, and accuracy. If applicable, include references to relevant statutes or case law. Overall, aim for a balanced and informative summary that captures the critical aspects of the case. The summary should be a json object with the following keys: Case Name, Court, Date of Judgement, Overview, Facts, Legal Issue, Arguments, Courts Decision and any legal precedents (if applicable). |
|
|
|
### Input: |
|
{doc} |
|
|
|
### Response: |
|
""" |
|
``` |
|
|
|
# Model Output |
|
``` |
|
{ |
|
""Case Name"": "Hogle Holdings Ltd. v. National Specialty Cars Ltd.", |
|
""Court"": "Superior Court of Justice, Cour superieure de justice", |
|
""Date of Judgement"": "June 14, 2004", |
|
""Overview"": "The case involves two motions: one by the plaintiff for various orders due to difficulties in obtaining document production and examination for discovery from the defendant, and another by the defendant for an order to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of defence and counterclaim for non-compliance with timetable orders.", |
|
""Facts"": "The plaintiff encountered difficulties in obtaining document production and examination for discovery from the defendant. The defendant's response was characterized by delays and obstruction, leading the plaintiff to seek various orders including permission to search the defendant's premises for relevant documents.", |
|
""Legal Issue"": "The legal issues revolve around the plaintiff's request for an order striking out the defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim due to non-compliance with timetable orders, and the plaintiff's motion for permission to enter the defendant’s premises and search for relevant documents.", |
|
""Arguments"": "The plaintiff argued that it had a right to search the defendant's premises for relevant documents and make copies of them based on Rule 32, while the defendant argued against such an order. The plaintiff also argued that it deliberately failed to comply with timetable orders to pressure the defendant into producing documents.", |
|
""Courts Decision"": "The court denied the plaintiff's request for permission to search the defendant’s premises and make copies of relevant documents. The court also declined to strike out the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim due to non-compliance with timetable orders, but ordered both parties not to be awarded costs on either motion.", |
|
""Legal Precedents"": "The court did not provide any explicit legal precedents in the given case." |
|
} |
|
``` |
|
|
|
# Recommended Grammar |
|
``` |
|
root ::= Case |
|
Case ::= "{" ws "\"\"Case Name\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Court\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Date of Judgement\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Overview\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Facts\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Legal Issue\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Arguments\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Courts Decision\"\":" ws string "," ws "\"\"Legal Precedents\"\":" ws string "}" |
|
Caselist ::= "[]" | "[" ws Case ("," ws Case)* "]" |
|
string ::= "\"" ([^"]*) "\"" |
|
boolean ::= "true" | "false" |
|
ws ::= [ \t\n]* |
|
number ::= [0-9]+ "."? [0-9]* |
|
stringlist ::= "[" ws "]" | "[" ws string ("," ws string)* ws "]" |
|
numberlist ::= "[" ws "]" | "[" ws string ("," ws number)* ws "]" |
|
``` |
