caselaw_search_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent
Find judgments by the QUESTION they settle, rather than by words they contain.
Every judgment summary on this corpus records the questions that judgment actually decides — e.g.
"Does delay in lodging the FIR by itself entitle the accused to bail?" This searches those
questions, so it matches the shape a legal problem arrives in rather than the vocabulary a
1987 bench happened to use.
COVERAGE IS PARTIAL: only some judgments have a summary with questions yet (the response's
`coverage_note` gives the current live ratio, which keeps growing). An empty result means no
*summarised* judgment matched — it does NOT mean no such judgment exists. Fall back to
caselaw_search, which covers the whole corpus.
The questions are prepared from the judgment text. They are a finding aid, not a
holding: cite the judgment, never the question. Pass an id to caselaw_get_case to read it.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | Only this court, e.g. 'Supreme Court' or 'Lahore High Court' | |
| judge | No | Only judgments where this judge sat on the bench (spelling-tolerant, e.g. 'Mansoor Ali Shah') | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | The legal question or its subject, in the words a judgment would use — 'delay in lodging FIR', 'concurrent findings of fact', 'pre-arrest bail murder' | |
| offset | No | ||
| year_to | No | Latest year (inclusive) | |
| year_from | No | Earliest year (inclusive) | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |