{"uid":"cap_ywT2JIc8GmYLPYXxNTK0Z","slug":"2s-law-case-verify-72595b14","name":"2s Law Case Verify","description":"The (most) everything API: 575+ pay-per-call endpoints for AI agents — ground-truth data, a full AI gateway, and agent infrastructure (storage, queues, watchers). USDC via x402, no signup, no API keys, and upto billing: pay actual usage, not the quote.","url":"https://2s.io/api/law/case-verify","method":"POST","headers":{},"bodySchema":{"type":"object","properties":{"text":{"type":"string","maxLength":30000,"minLength":1}}},"responseSchema":{"type":"json","schema":{"type":"object","required":["ok","items","total","source"],"properties":{"ok":{"enum":[true],"type":"boolean"},"meta":{"type":"object","required":["input","verified","unverified"],"properties":{"input":{"type":"string","description":"Echo of the checked text (truncated past 200 chars)."},"verified":{"type":"integer"},"unverified":{"type":"integer"}},"additionalProperties":false},"items":{"type":"array","items":{"type":"object","additionalProperties":{}}},"total":{"type":"integer","nullable":true,"description":"Total matching rows upstream; null when unknown."},"source":{"type":"object","required":["provider","url","license"],"properties":{"url":{"type":"string"},"license":{"type":"string"},"provider":{"type":"string"}},"additionalProperties":false}},"additionalProperties":false},"example":{"ok":true,"meta":{"input":"example","verified":1,"unverified":1},"items":[{}],"total":1,"source":{"url":"example","license":"example","provider":"example"}}},"example":{"request":{"text":"In Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (1999), the court held that statutory interpretation requires careful analysis of legislative intent. See also Doe v. Roe, 789 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 2003), which clarified the standard for summary judgment motions."},"response":{"data":{"ok":true,"meta":{"input":"In Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (1999), the court held that statutory interpretation requires careful analysis of legislative intent. See also Doe v. Roe, 789 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 2003), which clarified…","verified":1,"unverified":1},"items":[{"case":null,"error":"Citation not found: '123 U.S. 456'","citation":"123 U.S. 456","endIndex":31,"verified":false,"startIndex":19,"normalizedCitation":"123 U.S. 456"},{"case":{"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/469062/trustees-of-the-amalgamated-insurance-fund-v-mcfarlins-inc/","name":"Trustees of the Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. McFarlin's, Inc.","year":1986,"court":"","courtName":null,"dateFiled":"1986-04-10","docketNumber":null,"citationCount":217,"precedentialStatus":"Published"},"error":null,"citation":"789 F.2d 101","endIndex":167,"verified":true,"startIndex":155,"normalizedCitation":"789 F.2d 101"}],"total":2,"source":{"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com","license":"Public domain (court opinions) + CC0/BSD (metadata)","provider":"CourtListener (Free Law Project)"}},"meta":{"cost":{"usd":0.006,"tier":0},"caller":"x402","version":null,"endpoint":"law.case-verify","settlement":{"txHash":"0xe3623bf4c28b1b590132c93c875996f998bc6915e1fbaac0e52f5ceeeff3eb76","network":"eip155:8453","success":true}}}},"exampleRequest":{"text":"In Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (1999), the court held that statutory interpretation requires careful analysis of legislative intent. See also Doe v. Roe, 789 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 2003), which clarified the standard for summary judgment motions."},"tags":["x402"],"displayCostAmount":"0.006","displayCostAsset":"USDC","priceDynamic":false,"priceHint":null,"priceStatus":"priced","priceSource":"settled","requiresHandshake":false,"reviewCount":0,"rating":{"score":"0.00","successRate":"0.00","reviews":0,"stars":null,"state":"unrated"},"availabilityStatus":"unknown","priceObserved":null,"sessionDeposit":null,"pricing":{"kind":"static","summary":"$0.006/call","primary":{"kind":"static","protocol":"x402","network":"base","amountUsd":"0.015","per":"call","confidence":"exact"},"accepted":[{"kind":"static","protocol":"x402","network":"base","amountUsd":"0.015","per":"call","confidence":"exact"}]},"paymentMethods":[{"uid":"pm_GTcGsXFacgw3drYBBn1rZ","protocol":"x402","methodType":"crypto","chain":"base","mode":"charge","costAmount":"0.015","costPer":"request","priority":0,"asset":"0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913","unit":"request","depositMicros":null,"planRef":null}],"brandName":null,"brandSlug":null,"brandBaseUrl":null,"brandDocsUrl":null,"whatItDoes":"Verifies legal case citations found in a block of text, returning structured metadata about each case and whether it is confirmed or unconfirmed","exampleAgentPrompt":"Can you check this legal brief for me and verify which case citations are real? Here's the text: 'In Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (1999), the court held... see also Doe v. Roe, 789 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 2003)...'","exampleUseCases":null,"resultDescription":"A JSON object with an array of case items (each with case metadata and verification status), a count of verified vs unverified citations, total matching rows upstream, and source provenance (provider name, URL, license).","failureModes":["Text too short (minLength:1 not met) — validation error","Text exceeds 30,000 character limit — request rejected","No recognizable case citations found in text — empty items array returned","Upstream case database unavailable — possible 5xx or degraded response","Payment not included or insufficient — 402 Payment Required"],"whenToPreferThis":"Use this endpoint when you need to programmatically verify that legal case citations embedded in a block of text are real and confirmed in an authoritative database, especially in automated legal document review, contract auditing, or brief validation workflows. Prefer this over manual search when processing large documents with many citations at once.","instructions":null,"reviewSummary":null,"reviewSummaryHighlights":null,"reviewSummaryConcerns":null,"reviewSummaryGeneratedAt":null,"activationCount":0,"lastUsedAt":null,"lastSuccessfullyRanAt":null,"lastHealthCheckAt":"2026-09-14T06:59:29.780Z","isFirstParty":false}