Research from primary law, highest binding authority first

Models are good at suggesting where to look. They are not a source of law. The engine keeps those two jobs apart: an idea for an authority can come from a model, from the record or from a prior matter, but nothing is cited until it has been fetched from a primary source and read. Ideas can come from anywhere. Citations come only from sources.

Research climbs a set ladder, rung by rung:

1. Start in the case-law database. The first rung is the engine's own case-law research database, searched for opinions on the issue, not a general web search and not recall.
2. Rank by binding force. Candidates are ranked by how often the courts that bind the filing court have cited them, not by raw popularity. The highest binding authority comes first.
3. Climb to the top. Research aims for the top of each court system's ladder: the state's highest court for state questions, the U.S. Supreme Court for federal ones. See how that runs up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. Label the rest. Everything that does not bind the filing court is labeled persuasive, so nobody mistakes a helpful opinion from elsewhere for controlling law.
5. Verify before use. Each case that will be cited is fetched, read in full, and held to the four-part standard before it gets a ledger row.

The glossary has controlling and persuasive authority defined.

Many rights can be argued under a state source and a federal source at once. The engine pairs them: for each right, it looks for the state provision and the state's highest authority, and for the federal provision and U.S. Supreme Court authority. Research must reach the highest court of each sovereign, and a research table whose authorities all sit below that court is refused. Each right is preserved under both footings where both apply, so a loss on one footing need not end the claim.

Most research looks for support. The engine also runs a search in both directions for binding authority against the theory. If controlling authority against the filing's position surfaces, in research or at any later point, the work stops. Nothing more is built until there is a recorded pivot: a different theory, a different filing, an honest distinction of the adverse case, or an informed decision to go ahead with the adverse authority addressed.

This ties directly to a lawyer's duty of candor about directly adverse authority from the controlling jurisdiction (ABA Model Rule 3.3(a)(2)). The engine does not discharge that duty for anyone; it is built so the adverse authority is found early, while there is still time to deal with it. More on adverse authority in hard cases.

Illustration: fictional courts and a fictional issue. It shows the order of work, not a real result.

Suppose a fictional matter in the Example County Superior Court (fictional) turns on whether an arbitration clause in a contract can be enforced. The engine first searches its case-law database for opinions on enforcing arbitration clauses. It ranks the results by the courts that bind the Example County Superior Court: the State of Example Court of Appeals (fictional), then the State of Example Supreme Court (fictional), and, for the federal question, the U.S. Supreme Court. A persuasive opinion from a neighboring fictional state is kept, but labeled persuasive. The adverse sweep then runs the same ladder looking for binding authority against the enforcement argument. If it finds a controlling opinion against it, the work stops until a pivot is recorded. Only the cases that will actually be cited are read in full and entered in the ledger.

Recency is confirmed with a live sweep for the most recent controlling statement before the research is relied on. It is listed as a written obligation in the process, not a computed check, and we describe it that way here. The most recent controlling statement on an issue matters, and a database has a last-updated date. So the engine does not pretend to settle recency by computation.

Each type of claim has its own ways of failing: pleading gaps, timing problems, immunity defenses, procedural bars. The research phase lists the known dismissal traps for the claim type, each with how it will be avoided, and every loss or denial the engine records becomes a new entry that future research has to confront. Research cannot clear its phase without fresh receipts showing what was actually searched and read.

Court rules. The official rule text for the filing court and the filing type is fetched before strategy and re-checked before drafting and before the final read. The rules are treated as primary law with a receipt: which court, which rule, which version, and when it was retrieved. See official court rules.

Statutes. Statute text is required from source before reliance, and it is retrieved from the source. The engine does not treat recalled statute text as a source, and the statute cite is not claimed to pass through the case-citation ledger.

Figure	What it is	Date
about 10 million	court opinions	source snapshot dated 30 June 2026
77 million	citation links in the citation graph	source snapshot dated 30 June 2026
3,400	courts matched to their official court rules, in 57 U.S. jurisdictions	as of 7 October 2026

• Finding and ranking a case is never enough to cite it: every case relied on is read in full from a primary source.
• Statute text is required before a statute is relied on. Statute text is retrieved from the source.

Each line is one opinion citing another. Ranking follows the lines that lead to your court.

The same database is also a research product of its own: Legal Ops Depot's case-law library, with court opinions and the citation graph that connects them.

Legal Ops Depot's own case-law library: about 10 million court opinions and 77 million citation links, from the 30 June 2026 source snapshot. Every case relied on is read in full from a primary source before it is cited.

One library holds case law and court rules, as well as statutes.

Search the library (opens the main site)

3,400 courts are matched to their official federal or state court rules, in 57 U.S. jurisdictions, as of 7 October 2026. Local court rules are not loaded yet. We publish one dated total, with no breakdown by court. There is a straight answer to what courts are covered in the FAQ.

Any case-law tool the engine uses is held to a standing benchmark of graded questions. It includes negative controls, where the right answer is that no controlling authority exists, and recency probes. A tool that fails is dropped at once; a tool that passes earns trust only for the kind of question it passed. And no research tool, however well it scores, can put a case citation into a filing: only the Citation Ledger can.

The library is built from public court opinions and published bulk data, with full opinion text fetched from primary sources such as the courts' own websites. Legal Ops Depot is not affiliated with or endorsed by any data source.

Every step of the research leaves a record:

• each case citation records the research source that produced it;
• each court rule records its version and retrieval time;
• adverse findings and pivots are recorded with the reasons;
• the recency check is recorded as its own step.

For a supervising attorney, that means the research can be followed back to its sources rather than taken on trust.

• We do not claim the index holds all opinions ever written, or all statutes in the country.
• We do not present the size of any database as court-rules coverage.
• We do not claim that finding the controlling law decides the case. It tells you where you stand.

Does the engine rely on what the AI model already knows? Only to suggest where to look. Research runs in the engine's database and in primary sources, and every case relied on is read in full from a primary source before it can be cited.

How is binding authority ranked? From the top down. The courts that bind the filing court come first, led by the highest of them; everything else is labeled persuasive.

What happens when the law is against the theory? The work stops until there is a recorded pivot. That may be a different theory, a different filing, an honest distinction of the adverse case, or an informed decision to go ahead and address it.

How current is the case law? The case law and citation graph come from a source snapshot dated 30 June 2026. For anything newer, and before recording the most recent controlling statement, a live search is run.

Which courts' rules does it use? 3,400 courts are matched to their official court rules, in 57 U.S. jurisdictions, as of 7 October 2026, and the engine will not proceed on a court whose rule book is missing. Tell us your court when you email us.

Does it research statutes? Statute text is required from source before reliance. Statute text is retrieved from the source, and the same library holds statutes alongside case law and court rules.

Can I use the case-law library? Yes: Legal Ops Depot's case-law library is open. Search the library (opens the main site).

Email us with questions about the research ladder and the adverse sweep.

Start a request (opens the main site) Court rules

Legal Ops Depot is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.