Legal knowledge at your command
Bring your practice into the future with industry-leading legal AI that delivers Deep Research, Automated Citation Validation, and Generative Drafting.
Built on the architecture of law itself.
Opine is built on a bespoke knowledge graph that doesn't just contain legal information, it mirrors the intricate relationships, hierarchies, and dependencies that define legal reasoning. Every statute, precedent, and principle is precisely mapped to reveal connections others miss.
Reveal what others overlook.
Our legal knowledge graph enables sophisticated AI reasoning to provide you with comprehensive legal intelligence. Uncover precedents, trace legal genealogies, and identify strategic opportunities with incredible precision.
Ensure every citation stands up to scrutiny.
Opine Law meticulously reviews legal documents and cross-references every citation. Instantly verify accuracy, identify outdated authorities, flag misapplied propositions, and uncover potential conflicts with controlling precedent before they undermine your arguments.
This is a legal brief discussing the precedent set in Smith v. Jones, 302 U.S. 115 (1988). The court found that the defendant was liable. Further arguments rely on Doe v. Roe, 15 F.3d 265 (2nd Cir. 1995), which established a clear standard for negligence in such cases. However, one must also consider the dissenting opinion in Public Corp. v. Citizen, 450 F. Supp. 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), which has been cited favorably in subsequent, non-binding cases.
The principle of stare decisis is paramount, yet the evolving nature of jurisprudence, as seen in Innovate LLC v. Old Guard Inc., 999 U.S. 1 (2023), suggests a potential shift. This case is particularly relevant. We also note the ruling in State v. Miller (1885), 12 N.E. 555, which is clearly outdated and has been superseded by modern statutes.
It is also pertinent to note the recent Supreme Court guidance in Advanced Legal Tech v. The World, 123 U.S. 456 (2024), which clarifies the application of prior precedents in the digital age. This ruling has significant implications for discovery protocols.
Finally, the procedural aspects are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) regarding discovery scope. This rule is consistently applied. An obscure local rule, Local Rule 7.1(q), is sometimes misapplied by opposing counsel.
Initializing scan...
Stay in control of your document.
Transform research into persuasive legal documents with human-in-the-loop generative drafting. Our system drafts from the ground up to match your desired structure and arguments, ensuring every document reflects your expertise and leverages our structured knowledge with precision.