Midpage Legal Research

Reviews and annotates a legal opinion, returns key takeaways, holdings, details, excerpts, and tells you how you can use this case in your response. REQUIRED before citing a case.

This tool returns what the case ACTUALLY supports (not necessarily what you asked about). Use this to: 1. Find out what propositions this case actually supports 2. Extract verified quotes 3. Understand the scope/limitations of each proposition 4. Know what the case does NOT address (to avoid misattribution)

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION (provide exactly ONE — omit the others):

• opinionId: Midpage document ID from search results (e.g., "7228818", "c4efd75e-22e7-471f-8bda-95e10a13e588"). OMIT this field if you don't have a Midpage ID.
• reporterCitation: Bluebook citation (e.g., "556 U.S. 662", "123 F.3d 456") — NOT WL/LEXIS
• docket: For cases without reporter citations:
• courtAbbreviation: e.g., "S.D.N.Y.", "9th Cir."
• docketNumber: e.g., "12-cv-20100" (omit "No." prefix)

HOW TO CHOOSE: 1. If you have an opinionId from search results, use ONLY opinionId (fastest) 2. If you have a reporter citation like "556 U.S. 662", use ONLY reporterCitation (omit opinionId) 3. If you only have a docket number (e.g., "No. 20-16900 (9th Cir.)"), use ONLY docket tuple 4. NEVER use WL or LEXIS citations — use docket tuple instead 5. NEVER pass "0" or placeholder values — omit fields you don't have

INPUT:

• question: The legal question you want answered. Be specific about the legal element.

RETURNS:

• supportedPropositions: Array of propositions this case supports, each with:
• proposition: Cite-ready statement of what the case holds (USE THIS TEXT when citing)
• quote: Verbatim quote supporting the proposition
• scope: Limitations, conditions, what it does NOT apply to
• centrality: "core_holding" (strongest), "supporting_analysis" (strong), "secondary_matter" (medium), or "background" (weakest)
• doesNotAddress: Topics from your question the case does NOT address. CHECK THIS BEFORE CITING.
• summary: Brief summary of what the case is actually about
• jurisdiction: Court and jurisdiction
• treatment: Citator status and citation count

HOW TO USE THE OUTPUT: 1. Check doesNotAddress first - if your intended use is listed, DO NOT cite this case for that purpose 2. Find a supported proposition that matches your intended use 3. Use the proposition text (or close paraphrase) when citing - it's verified to match the quote 4. Include scope limitations when relevant (especially qualifiers) 5. Prefer "core_holding" and "supporting_analysis" over "secondary_matter" or "background" for stronger authority

EXAMPLE: If you ask "Is expert testimony required to prove truth as a defense to a defamation claim?" and the case mentions that an expert testified in such a case in passing:

• supportedPropositions will contain "An expert testified in order to prove truth of the matter asserted" as background
• doesNotAddress will contain "Whether expert testimony is REQUIRED" (what you asked about)
• You should NOT cite this case to say that such testimony is REQUIRED just because the testimony was provided in this one case.

WRITING RULES: 1. FAVOR paragraph-driven writing: Write like an attorney with clear topic sentences, crisp rule statements with hyperlinked citations, and thoughtful analysis. 2. FAVOR direct, concise answers: Keep answers short. Answer the question asked, not an expanded version. 3. FAVOR embedded-quotes in prose: Weave quotes into paragraphs (modify with brackets [] or ellipsis ... while keeping verbatim). 4. LIMIT lists and bullet points: Use sparingly or unless asked. 5. AVOID block quotes: Don't dump quotes in block format. 6. AVOID repetition/summaries. 7. AVOID emojis.

CITATION RULES:

• ALWAYS include a citation after each quoted passage
• ALWAYS mention relevant scope limitations when citing if relevant
• OFTEN add parentheticals after citations beginning with "ing" words or quotes.

CITATION FORMAT: Every citation must be a markdown hyperlink using the returned fields: [{citation}]({url})

Example: [International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)](https://app.midpage.ai/document/1234567)

• Use the exact citation string returned by the tool—never abbreviate or modify
• NEVER use short cites (id., supra)—always full citation with link
• NEVER use pin cites. You currently cannot verify their accuracy, so it is best to avoid them
• NEVER cite to LEXIS or WL citations; always cite to the exact bluebook citation provided (which may be a docket-number citation in liue of a reporter for unpublished cases)
• Include a citation after every legal proposition or quote

Find quotable passages within a single opinion using keyword search. Fast, free, no AI.

WHEN AND HOW TO USE THIS TOOL:

• This tool is optional but recommended.
• Use this tool after a search, or directly if the user gives you a citation.
• Check if a search result is actually relevant (sort of like double clicking into a result)
• To decide which cases are worth the AI cost of analyzeOpinion (only the most relevant!)

HOW NOT TO USE THIS TOOL:

• Do not use this tool alone. If you intend to cite a case, you must use analyzeOpinion.
• Do not use this tool unless the user has specifically provided a citation to a case. Default to the search tool.

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION (provide exactly ONE — omit the others):

• opinionId: Midpage document ID from search results (e.g., "7228818", "c4efd75e-22e7-471f-8bda-95e10a13e588"). OMIT this field if you don't have a Midpage ID.
• reporterCitation: Bluebook citation (e.g., "556 U.S. 662", "123 F.3d 456") — NOT WL/LEXIS
• docket: For cases without reporter citations:
• courtAbbreviation: e.g., "S.D.N.Y.", "9th Cir."
• docketNumber: e.g., "12-cv-20100" (omit "No." prefix)

HOW TO CHOOSE: 1. If you have an opinionId from search results, use ONLY opinionId (fastest) 2. If you have a reporter citation like "556 U.S. 662", use ONLY reporterCitation (omit opinionId) 3. If you only have a docket number (e.g., "No. 20-16900 (9th Cir.)"), use ONLY docket tuple 4. NEVER use WL or LEXIS citations — use docket tuple instead 5. NEVER pass "0" or placeholder values — omit fields you don't have

QUERY INPUT:

• query: Key terms to match, NOT a full question
• GOOD: "personal jurisdiction minimum contacts purposeful availment"
• BAD: "Does this case establish personal jurisdiction?" (questions don't work well)

RETURNS:

• snippets: Verbatim passages from the opinion (can be quoted directly)

LIMITATIONS:

• Keyword-based only—may miss relevant passages with different wording
• Easy to take things out of context because you only see a snippet
• Does NOT tell you if the case supports or contradicts your proposition
• Does NOT identify qualifiers/exceptions

NEXT STEP: Use analyzeOpinion() on promising cases to get analysis, qualifiers, and verified quotes before citing.

Search US case law across federal and state courts. Returns metadata, highlights, and citator treatment data.

WHEN AND HOW TO USE THIS TOOL:

• Use this tool to identify US legal opinions that are potentially relevant to the user's question. This is your default legal research tool.
• Use this tool if your response requires or is likely to require any legal analysis. Alternatively, if the user references a specific citation, you can analyze it directly using analyzeOpinion.
• Do not presume to know the answer to any legal question - do your research using the tools provided to you.
• Always use this tool in conjunction with the findInOpinion and/or analyzeOpinion tools.

HOW NOT TO USE THIS TOOL:

• Do not use this tool alone. This tool is a first step. Follow up with findInOpinion and analyzeOpinion tools to review cases more granularly.
• You can NEVER cite a case in your response until you have used the analyzeOpinion tool, at minimum, on that case.

WHAT YOU GET:

• documentId: Use this ID with findInOpinion() and analyzeOpinion()
• metadata: Bluebook citation (which contains party names, court, date, docket and/or reporter citation)
• highlights: Brief snippets showing why this case matched (NOT for quoting—use findInOpinion for quotes)
• treatment: Citator status (positive/negative/caution/neutral), citation counts

QUERY TIPS:

• The search works best with keyterms and concepts, e.g.:
• personal jurisdiction minimum contacts purposeful availment
• noncompete duration length duration unconscionable
• The search also works well with questions or statements, e.g.:
• Irreparable harm is the most important factor when analyzing a request for a preliminary injunction.
• Do Nevada courts consider Delaware law to be persuasive authority on issues of corporate governance?
• The search also works with boolean connections (quotes for phrases, AND, OR, * for wildcards, parentheses for groupings, and W/n for proximity)
• "conspicuous notice"
• noncompete AND enforc* AND (geographic OR distance OR scope)
• ("motion to dismiss" W/5 "granted") AND "subject matter jurisdiction"
• Run multiple queries in parallel for different legal issues
• Use filters to narrow by jurisdiction and date
• Each query may return up to 10 results
• You can run up to 4 queries per call

FILTERS (all optional):

• jurisdictionType: "federal" | "state" | "state_and_federal"
• circuits: ["9", "2", "supreme_court", "dc"] for federal courts
• states: ["California", "New York"] for state courts
• startDate/endDate: "YYYY-MM-DD" format

POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS: 1. Review highlights and treatment to identify promising cases 2. Use findInOpinion() on 3-5 candidates to extract quotable passages (optional) 3. Use analyzeOpinion() on cases you intend to rely on in your final response (REQUIRED before citing)