judyrecords
search tips
630 million+
United States Court Cases

Info

About judyrecords

judyrecords is a 100% free nationwide search engine that lets you instantly search hundreds of millions of United States court cases and lawsuits. judyrecords has over 100x more cases than Google Scholar and 10x more cases than PACER, the official case management system of the United States federal judiciary. As of Dec 2021, judyrecords now features free full-text search of all United States patents from 1/1/1976 to 11/10/2021 — over 7.9 million patents in total.

Update (7/27): Received and processed Case ID list from Maine. Received Case ID list from Dallas. Reached out to remaining jurisdictions. Tyler's incident response page still coded to prevent search engines from finding and indexing it. In a class-action lawsuit in federal court arising from the CA Bar incident, Tyler argued on 7/25 they had no duty directly to those whose intended-to-be-confidential records were exposed, nor did they owe a duty to the CA Bar itself. In case you're wondering, by contrast, this was me to the California State Bar — literally *150* days ago today. Last thing — proper security. The software needs to implement a check like this before returning intended-to-be-confidential cases — otherwise everything is wide open — which means no security. (Hint: Exchange the word "edit" with "view" and "post" with "case".) Update (7/20): Per the message linked in the 7/15 update, reached out to the jurisdictions noted in this section with that open offer to resolve the situation. I've got Friday off (7/22) from my job to be available for those who wish to connect and continue to reach out to those I haven't heard from. I expect Case ID lists from Dallas County TX and Maine this week. Processed Vermont Case ID list today. Update (7/19): In a possible first for an incident response page, linked to below by judyrecords and from the CA Bar incident page, Tyler's page actually includes explicit code preventing the page from being found and indexed by search engines. Something you might call "reverse transparency". If you couldn't find the page, that would be why. At the same time, based on new information from one of the jurisdictions, the number of intended-to-be-confidential cases will tentatively surpass 2 million this week, and is at 1.3 million currently. CVE report of this issue here, referencing my original account of the issue here. Update (7/15): After Tyler's blatant lies in the 6/30 update, which included a failure of 60+ days to communicate basic information to jurisdictions, and went as far as creating a self-serving false threat that judyrecords would restore data of affected Odyssey portals without significant advance notice and intended to do so on June 27th, my lawyers requested that Tyler provide this message to jurisdictions. Update (7/6): Per the update directly below, but to clarify here: Is there any basis or evidence that cases downloaded by judyrecords in the non-direct access group are at issue regarding nonpublic cases? No. I have clarified to great lengths the nature of the software defect that caused nonpublic cases to be exposed on the what happened page here. It was found that Tyler was essentially operating a series of YouTube sites (i.e., Odyssey Portals) where if a video was marked private, the only thing that resulted from the designation of private was that the video didn't show up in search results. The videos (i.e., cases) were otherwise publicly available and did not implement basic security. Per the CA State Bar: "These records came from the State Bar’s Odyssey Portal, which was supposed to provide access to public case records only ... The State Bar verified that this vulnerability allowed judyrecords to scrape both public and nonpublic State Bar attorney discipline case records from the Odyssey Portal. ... Importantly, the Odyssey vulnerability was only triggered by web scraping; regular searches of the Odyssey Portal did not permit access to nonpublic records." Therefore, access by search, then direct case request would not have resulted in nonpublic cases being downloaded by judyrecords, whereas directly accessing cases allowed both public and nonpublic cases to be downloaded. However, if there is still concern regarding the non-direct access group, see the note below. (Please note this has no bearing on access that occurred outside judyrecords.) There has also been continued confusion regarding case IDs, and I will be posting an update on that as well. Unfortunately, this has been misrepresented and I will be further clarifying this issue. Update (6/30): I found out last week Tyler communicated this message to jurisdictions. First, over 2 months ago, I made it clear that just providing a list of *public case IDs* is absolutely fine. This is the exact information portals already provide, if there was any reluctance to provide IDs affirmatively specifying non-public case IDs. Second, the message is misleading in that it implies judyrecords will not provide point-in-time data. I have always been clear that I would be happy to provide information about records intended to be nonpublic in return, and include additional information identifying cases viewed, dates viewed, and the content of cases downloaded. A largely mitigating factor of this entire situation is that I acted swiftly and competently when the original CA state bar incident came to light, and worked aggressively to find ways to minimize the damage of the situation, including capturing page view analytics, cross-referencing that data to cases, and making that information available for jurisdictions (and Tyler) to assist in resolving the situation. Third, and most importantly, neither I nor anyone on my behalf gave a deadline that judyrecords would post information by June 27th if a resolution was not reached. This is a deliberately false communication of information off-band of their published incident page in an attempt to instigate litigation or legal threats against me, mislead, and create fear. I'll be posting another update relatively soon and also adding an update to the Q&A page further clarifying direct and non-direct access jurisdictions. There has been some confusion, but I'm happy to accommodate non-direct access jurisdictions as well and have done so for a number of jurisdictions already, but a list of case IDs will need to be sent upfront — and it's fine to just provide the list of public case IDs (and the same for direct access jurisdictions). Update (6/9): Thank you for the support — from the general public to attorneys to judges to those working within the jurisdictions themselves. A class action lawsuit was filed in the Orange County, CA Superior Court on 3/18. (case no. 30-2022-01250695-CU-AT-CXC) On 5/13, the case was removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (case no. 8:2022cv00983). Five days later on 5/18, judyrecords was dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit. Tyler Technologies and the State Bar of California remain as defendants. The last few months, I've had a front row seat to unimaginable recklessness, incompetence, and dishonesty. Four international law firms are involved, Tyler Technologies hired the most prestigious security firm in the world (yet hasn't given even a basic account of the software defect), and I caught the tail end of (and documented) what has likely been millions of unprotected court cases sprayed across Google's search index from Tyler's Odyssey Portals over the last 5-7 years. I'll be posting an update in the coming days here. Update (3/20 10:15AM CT): Updated What Happened With Tyler Technologies to add Q&A here. Update (3/18 3:02PM CT): What Happened With Tyler Technologies is now available here. I'm going to push out restoring general access to at least next week. Update (3/16 8:15AM CT): CA State Bar has published an update here (3/15 update). They have re-enabled their attorney discipline portal. Update (3/14 7:25PM CT): CA State Bar has published an update here (3/14 update). Update (3/14 11:30AM CT): General access will be restored this week, minus affected data sources. A page will be available by the end of the week here. Update (3/11 4:30PM CT): CA State Bar has published an update here (3/10 update). Related here here, and here. Also, in the interest of transparency and clarity, the article leading me to disable search and certain case access on 3/1 here. I'll be addressing the issues raised soon and provide updates. Related here. Update (3/11 2:50PM CT): Tyler Technologies has put up a page for this issue here. Update (3/10 6:48PM CT): I am working to get the site back online for general access, minus affected data sources, as well as a separate page for this issue. Update (3/9 5:00PM CT): There have been significant steps in collaboration with Tyler Technologies and the State Bar of California over the last week. I believe that Cal Bar will be releasing more detailed information soon, but anticipate that the number of affected cases will be relatively close to my original estimate of < 1,000. In working with Tyler Technologies, we have identified a subset of portals that may be similarly impacted, and judyrecords has saved case identifiers that will allow cross-referencing between systems. Together, we have tentatively identified a process that will allow answering questions about which non-public records may have been exposed. The way in which non-public case data had been downloaded by judyrecords has been shared fully, openly, and discussed with Tyler for about a week (since last Thursday). At this point, I have let them know that I am asking them to take a public position on whether they believe, don't believe, or are undecided about whether non-public cases were accessed inadvertently / unintentionally by the end of the day tomorrow, and I have also let them know I intend to collaborate fully as we have discussed/agreed regardless of the position they take. It is important to me that if there is any belief or any question whatsoever as to whether the non-public case data was accessed intentionally, that I make my position known openly and clearly that the access to non-public cases was inadvertent and not intentional in any way. Update (3/8 4:10PM CT): Continued positive movement. Expect to have an update later tonight or tomorrow (Wed) now. Update (3/7 3:20PM CT): Expect to have an update tomorrow now (Tues) but a lot of positive movement happening. Update (3/7 3:20PM CT): Expect to have an update tomorrow now (Tues) but a lot of positive movement happening. Update (3/4 6:15PM CT): Expect to have an update Monday. Update (3/3 11:45PM CT): No updates for today. Update (3/2 10:00PM CT): CA State Bar has published a noteworthy update here (3/2 update). Update (3/1 12:30PM CT): Out of an abundance of caution, the search function is disabled while any possible case access issues are resolved. Additionally, direct access to cases of the affected case management system have been disabled. Update (2/28 8:40PM CT): CA State Bar has published an update here (2/28 update). Update (2/27 11:05PM CT): Accepted an invite to discuss the issue. Tentatively, the number of affected cases is less than 1,000. Update (2/27 4:45PM CT): CA State Bar has reached out in writing to discuss the issue. Update (2/27 11:30AM CT): CA State Bar updated their press release to indicate the removal of the records as noted above. Update (2/27 1:22AM CT): Web host responded that after verification, no such issues have been reported. Update (2/26 11:50PM CT): I also contacted web host to inform them of the issue and ask about if/what time they have received any communication about this issue. Original Post: judyrecords was recently mentioned in this press release (2/26), which was found after this article was published. After seeing this, CA State Bar disciplinary records have already been removed from the index, including those intended to have been published as well. These records were all (confidential & non-confidential) previously publicly available at https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov (now offline). Additionally, I reached out directly to the email in the press release to address the issue and offered to help as appropriate. After checking, I have neither been attempted to be contacted directly or indirectly about this matter yet, although issue was mentioned as being discovered on the 24th. It's possible efforts to contact have been made, but I haven't seen any yet.

Extended searches The first 500K results are displayed instead of just the first 2K.

Downloadable datasets

Select upcoming datasources

Search tips

Case count log
2020-08-13 - 364.4 million/launch
2020-08-19 - 377.1 million
2020-08-20 - 379.5 million
2020-08-26 - 393.2 million
2020-09-24 - 397.3 million
2020-09-26 - 402.1 million
2020-09-27 - 404.4 million
2020-09-28 - 409.2 million
2020-09-30 - 409.8 million
2020-10-02 - 410.6 million
2020-10-05 - 413.6 million
2020-10-16 - 418.9 million
2020-10-28 - 419.3 million
2020-11-05 - 426.6 million
2020-11-16 - 435.4 million
2020-11-18 - 439.8 million
2020-12-02 - 440.3 million
2020-12-03 - 441.1 million
2020-12-05 - 444.0 million
2020-12-07 - 446.3 million
2020-12-09 - 448.4 million
2020-12-10 - 449.0 million
2020-12-12 - 449.4 million
2020-12-14 - 451.6 million
2020-12-15 - 453.2 million
2020-12-18 - 464.4 million
2021-01-09 - 477.8 million
2021-02-23 - 480.7 million
2021-02-25 - 480.9 million
2021-02-26 - 481.3 million
2021-02-27 - 481.5 million
2021-03-22 - 485.6 million
2021-03-23 - 487.6 million
2021-03-24 - 489.3 million
2021-03-28 - 495.1 million
2021-03-29 - 498.0 million
2021-03-31 - 507.7 million
2021-04-01 - 511.3 million
2021-04-02 - 514.8 million
2021-04-05 - 518.3 million
2021-04-12 - 529.7 million
2021-04-17 - 541.2 million
2021-04-20 - 563.7 million
2021-04-21 - 564.1 million
2021-04-24 - 564.6 million
2021-04-26 - 565.6 million
2021-04-29 - 566.1 million
2021-05-04 - 566.8 million
2021-05-05 - 567.6 million
2021-05-07 - 568.1 million
2021-05-08 - 569.0 million
2021-05-14 - 569.3 million
2021-05-20 - 570.5 million
2021-05-27 - 571.8 million
2021-06-01 - 574.2 million
2021-06-12 - 574.9 million
2021-06-19 - 575.0 million
2021-06-22 - 582.6 million
2021-07-12 - 583.5 million
2021-07-27 - 584.1 million
2021-08-01 - 584.3 million
2021-09-25 - 584.5 million
2021-09-26 - 584.8 million
2021-10-05 - 585.3 million
2021-10-13 - 588.3 million
2021-10-14 - 589.5 million
2021-10-15 - 591.1 million
2021-10-24 - 592.6 million
2021-10-25 - 593.3 million
2021-10-26 - 593.8 million
2021-10-27 - 594.3 million
2021-10-28 - 595.6 million
2021-10-29 - 596.5 million
2021-10-30 - 597.0 million
2021-10-31 - 597.9 million
2021-11-01 - 598.1 million
2021-11-02 - 599.2 million
2021-11-05 - 601.6 million
2021-11-07 - 602.4 million
2021-11-10 - 605.5 million
2021-11-13 - 607.8 million
2021-11-14 - 608.3 million
2021-11-19 - 608.7 million
2021-11-23 - 608.9 million
2021-11-25 - 609.1 million
2021-11-28 - 609.3 million
2021-11-30 - 609.4 million
2021-12-04 - 609.6 million
2021-12-05 - 610.0 million
2021-12-07 - 610.2 million
2021-12-11 - 611.8 million
2021-12-13 - 612.5 million
2021-12-19 - 612.9 million
2021-12-28 - 614.0 million
2022-01-02 - 620.6 million
2022-01-04 - 621.3 million
2022-01-06 - 621.6 million
2022-01-10 - 624.1 million
2022-01-13 - 637.3 million
2022-02-08 - 637.4 million

Other legal databases