Decisions that cite this provision, most significant first.

Every court is in scope — Bundesgerichte, Obergerichte and Instanzgerichte alike, plus the Court of Justice where it cites EU law. The ranking is: how often the deciding text cites the provision, then the court's tier, then recency.

Parameters

limit rows per page, 1-100, default 10. offset rows to skip, for reading past the first page. total is the full count, so offset up to total walks every citing decision. sort weight (default, the ranking above) or recent, newest decision first. The default response is byte-identical to what it was before this parameter existed.

sort=recent is BOUNDED, and says so when the bound bites. Ordering a norm's citation edges by decision date has no index to walk, so the planner sorts every edge; past ~20.000 edges it flips to a sequential scan of the whole caselaw table with a ~45 MB external merge. The norm page has run this query under a citer-count gate and a statement timeout since and this reuses both (web._NORM_RECENT_MAX_CITERS, web._NORM_RECENT_TIMEOUT_MS) — 99,95 % of cited norms are inside the gate; the procedural giants (§ 154 VwGO, § 708 ZPO) are not. Outside it, or on a timeout, the response falls back to the weight ranking and SAYS SO in ranking — it never serves a weight-ranked list under a label that claims recency.

Response

norm the provision, as "§ 288 BGB" total how many citing decisions there are in all offset the offset these rows start at, echoed back limit the page size in force cases the page: court, decided, aktenzeichen, ecli, doknr, slug, url, citations (how often this decision cites the provision) and the first 300 characters of its Leitsatz ranking present ONLY when a sort was asked for: sort is the ordering actually served, and requested_sort/sort_note appear when that is not the one asked for coverage present ONLY when total is 0 for a jurisdiction whose statutes the citation index does not reach — see below

A zero that is not a zero. The citation index links decisions to FEDERAL and EU provisions. For a Land statute there are no links at all, so total: 0 used to be indistinguishable from "no court has ever cited this" — and an agent researching Saxon or Brandenburg law read it as a finding and wrote it down. Such a response now carries coverage: {"state": "none-for-jurisdiction", …} naming the Land and pointing at the case search, where that Land's decisions really are.

Rows are also filtered to decisions that have an addressable page here, so total never promises a link cases cannot contain.