-
 
-
1. By default, CiteTrak tells you how many times your case is cited nationally.
-
-
2. The case we like is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
It answers five legal questions; four of which we don't care about.
However, we like what it says about the Federal money laundering statute.
-
     How do we know our case is citable? It is cited 114 times nationally. We don't want to read 114 judicial opinions. Besides, the objective at the outset of this tutorial, is to learn whether our case is citable. Only two courts can kill us. The U.S Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. So, this time we restrict our search to only these courts. Additionally, tell CiteTrak to "Show Number of Citations in Search Results." This reduces our results by 65%; from 114 to 30 cites. 74 opinions originated in non-mandatory courts. But, we still don't want to read 30 opinions.
-
3. What about the lingering, numerous opinions citing
our case for reasons that are irrelevant to our search?
-
     For example, our case also discusses the Federal bank fraud statute. But, we like it for money laundering. We don't care about bank fraud. So, this time we ask the search engine to return only those opinions from the Supreme Court or Second Circuit that cite our case for a money laundering reason.
     To do this, we combine the citation with the statute. Note the quotation marks around the citation. The statute underlying this search is 18 U.S.C. sec. 1956(a)(3). The section number is unique enough to do the trick. The section number lacks ambiguity; unlike the term "money laundering" which is likely to appear for irrelevant reasons. There are only two items of information driving this search. The citation and the statute. Both are included in our query.
-
--
      This search reduces our results by 93%; from 30 cites to two. We went from 114 cites to two and we haven't missed or read a case yet! At-a-glance we reduce our results by another 50%, from two cites to one, because one of the cites is our case; the lone opinion with the power to resolve our research issue to "yes" or "no."
-
-
4. A national search for additional insight is one click away.
-
      The lone opinion that cites our case for the reason we care about, from a jurisdiction we care about, does not offer much in the way of insight. This time, using the identical search query - "952 F.2d 686" and 1956(a)(3) - we execute an All-State/All-Fed National Search across all 315 jurisdictions by simply clicking the checkbox captioned "Select All."
      Of our 114 original cites, only four opinions nationally cite our case for the reason we care about! One of them, of course, is our case.
-
5. How do we know for sure whether our case is still "good law?"
-
     If you're still wondering how to know for sure whether our case is good law, the answer is you have to check that one case; just as you do with a West or Lexis Citator. The little flags everyone is addicted to do not tell you whether your case is good law. The best they can do (as Westlaw® makes plain) is indicate that your case is no longer good law "for at least one of the points of law it contains." (emphasis added)
     You still have to check to see if the implicated point of law matches your focal point; failure to do so, could be disastrous.
-
-
     "Flag Reliance" presumes human beings are infallible. Moreover, given the totality of circumstances surrounding the facts of your client's case, how do you know a flagless opinion is not deserving of a flag? Are the unseen, unknown Flag Planters omniscient?
     Back in the day, when researchers checked citations using little brown books, the wrongful omission of a flag was not knowable because everybody used the same books. Today, the universe of legal researchers includes the Flag Reliance Crowd, together with an elite class of researchers (which now includes you) who understand how to properly query an electronic index to ensure they don't miss a relevant opinion, even when your Flag Planter may have. When it comes to computers, "Advanced" doesn't mean difficult. It means nobody does it.-
     At-a-glance, in the original, individualized search result for each opinion, CiteTrak tells you if the opinion has been cited. If it hasn't been cited there's nothing to check. The best any citator can do is "tell you to check." It is urban legend that they do otherwise. The
process outlined on this page ensures that you find all the cases you need and none that you don't. It guarantees that you learn both the good and bad news regarding your case.  Moreover, because you have a comprehensive, national plan, you can actually view any opinion you find without revisiting the cash register.
     CiteTrak positions you to have a God-like knowledge (as opposed to pedantic knowledge) of your case. CiteTrak's processes are rooted in productivity. We use algorithms to reduce 114 cites to one (or three) cites, before you ever consult a case summary, to say nothing of scanning a full opinion to determine if further study is warranted.
     And, there you have the difference between 21st century legal research and 19th century taxonomy.
-
6. What To Do With What You Find:
Use TheLaw.net's built-in suite of mission critical navigation tools
to determine if an opinion warrants further study.
-
      The last thing you want is to waste time reading opinions you shouldn't be reading. By, default, when you display the full text of an opinion, all search terms are highlighted. However, you can select which search terms you want to scan. (Figure A)
      If all you want to do is scan for "Prozac," select it from the Highlight Menu to ensure you don't waste time scanning for "medical malpractice." (Figure B)
     To scan for instances of "Prozac" click the link captioned "Next Term." (Figure C)
      Click the link again to jump to each successive instance of "Prozac."
     Whenever you decide to save or print an opinion, you may elect to include highlighted search terms. (Figure D)
       You may save opinions directly to your hard drive in *.doc, *.pdf or *.rtf format. By default, opinions automatically reformat in dual columns. You may elect to save/print in single column. You may also highlight/cut/paste any portion of an opinion to your word processor or mail program.   

-
      (To scan an opinion for non-search terms click the "Find Button" in TheLaw.net's Button Bar, above. In the resulting window, enter the term you want to jump to and click the "Next Button.")    
-
TheLaw.net Corporation publishes legal research software for Windows 98/ME/2K/NT/XP/VISTA.
Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
WestLaw and the WestLaw logos and for all we know, the Little Red Flag,
are registered trademarks and/or trademarks of Thomson Reuters and its affiliated companies.
 © Copyright 1999 - 2009 TheLaw.net Corporation, Chicago/San Diego USA. All rights reserved.
Powered by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Terms and Conditions of Use