Define what research must resolve
Begin with the legal question, jurisdiction, relevant date, procedural setting, and factual assumptions. “Find cases about authority” is broad. A useful research assignment identifies the disputed proposition and what an authority would need to establish.
This lesson sets out a research workflow. It does not state the law on any substantive issue. Use the actual research platform and primary materials to verify the law that governs your task.
Keep a proposition table
| Field | What belongs here |
|---|---|
| Question | The precise legal point requiring an answer |
| Candidate proposition | The rule or distinction the research suggests |
| Authority | Verified case, statute, rule, or other primary source |
| Pinpoint | Passage supporting the proposition |
| Context | Facts, procedural setting, and limits affecting its use |
| Status | Treatment and currency checked, or outstanding |
| Contrary material | Authority or passages that qualify the proposed answer |
The table reveals a common gap: a real case can be cited for a proposition it does not establish. Existence, support, and continuing relevance are separate checks.
Work from candidates to verified analysis
- Ask AI to generate search terms, competing formulations, and possible lines of authority.
- Retrieve the candidate authorities through a research source you can inspect.
- Confirm case identity, court, date, and actual text.
- Read the supporting passage and its context. Identify whether it states a holding, recounts an argument, quotes another authority, or addresses a different issue.
- Check treatment and applicable legislative or procedural changes through appropriate current sources.
- Write the synthesis from the verified table, retaining contrary and qualifying material.
AI can assist with each stage. Keep the stage visible. An unverified candidate belongs in a research queue, not in a final footnote.
A useful challenge request
Using only the verified authorities in this table, identify the strongest qualification to the proposed proposition. For each qualification, give the supporting passage and explain its relevance to the stated facts. If the supplied authorities do not resolve the question, state the gap and propose the next search. Do not invent a citation or reconstruct missing text.A challenge can expose a weakness, but a second model's agreement is not independent verification. If both rely on the same mistaken summary, their agreement adds no primary support.
Try it: assess a citation
An AI memo cites a real decision and quotes an accurate sentence. The sentence appears in the decision's summary of an unsuccessful party's argument. Has the proposition been verified?
Check your understanding
No. You have verified the sentence's presence, not the court's adoption of its substance. Read the reasons to identify what the court decided and on what basis. Correct the proposition, find suitable support, or retain the question as unresolved.
Make the final review efficient
For every material proposition, leave a short route to the primary passage and a record of any outstanding currency check. Separate “not yet checked” from “checked and unsuitable.” That distinction prevents the next researcher from either relying on an unreviewed item or repeating a completed dead end.