Lovkart · verktøyene

The tools, and what to do with them

Eleven tools your assistant can reach for. Each does one plain thing; the power is in combining them — walking from a statute to the cases that apply it to the reform that wrote it. Every example below is real output from the live tools.

01The tools, in plain words

get_law_provisionRead a law. The verbatim text of any § or a whole act, with its lovdata.no link.
get_law_structureSee a law's shape. Its chapter and § outline.
get_legislative_historyTrace a law's origin. The proposal (Prop.), committee report, and later reforms behind it.
find_case_law_for_provisionFind the case law. Supreme Court decisions citing a law or §, filterable by sivil/straff, chamber, and year.
get_decisionLook up a ruling. A decision's details and everything it cites (see the note on decision text below).
get_citation_networkMap the citations. What cites — and is cited by — a source.
resolve_citationsCheck citations. Verify that the references in a text are real and resolvable.
search_legal_sourcesSearch by keyword. Discovery across laws, decisions, and preparatory works.
get_forarbeid_documentRead the preparatory works. The text of an NOU, proposition, or hearing document.
get_complaint_venueFind where to complain. The right klage body for a matter.
describe_corpusWhat's inside, and what isn't. Coverage and the honest limits.

02Three ways people use it

“I've been given notice at work — what does the law actually say, and has the Supreme Court dealt with it?”

reads

get_law_provision → arbeidsmiljøloven § 15-7, verbatim:

“§ 15-7. Vern mot usaklig oppsigelse. (1) Arbeidstaker kan ikke sies opp uten at det er saklig begrunnet…”

then

find_case_law_for_provision → the 24 civil (sivil) HR cases citing § 15-7, newest first:

HR-2024-1188-A — Oppsigelse var gyldig selv om arbeidsgiver ikke hadde… (2024-06-26) HR-2022-390-A — Arbeidstager med varig redusert arbeidsevne… (2022-02-16) HR-2021-2389-A — Oppsigelse etter brudd på «snokeforbudet»… (2021-12-06)

“What was the thinking behind this law when it was written?”

reads

get_legislative_history → tvisteloven traces back to its originating proposition:

origin → Ot.prp. nr. 51 (2004–2005) — “Lov om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister (tvisteloven)”, with its regjeringen.no link.

“A colleague cited two Supreme Court cases in a memo — are they real?”

checks

resolve_citations → verifies each reference against the corpus:

HR-2016-225-S → found — “Storkammersak om straff for grov voldsutøvelse…” HR-2099-1-A → not in the corpus — flagged, never invented.

Why this one matters

General AI models invent plausible-looking citations. Lovkart's answer to a reference it can't find is an honest “not resolvable” — not a fabricated case. That refusal is the feature.

03Decisions: today, and after the DPIA

Court decisions contain personal data about the people in the case. We're completing a data-protection assessment (a DPIA, with Datatilsynet) before serving the full text. So in this test, decisions are served as metadata and the citation graph — and a link to read the ruling itself at domstol.no.

Now — get_decision(HR-2016-225-S)

Title, case number, date, category
Cited-by count (49 later decisions) + every law/forarbeid it cites
The domstol.no link to read it
Decision text and judges: withheld

After the DPIA — a preview

Everything on the left, plus:
The panel of justices — e.g. Schei, Stabel, Matningsdal…
Pinpoint paragraphs (avsnitt) quoted verbatim
The full decision text, in your conversation

Until then, every decision result carries its domstol.no link — read the premises there.