-

     This section of TheLaw.net Search and Support Network shows you how to quickly find opinions in our database that match the search criteria you specify. But, first a couple of general comments about compusearching. A perfect search query is one that returns everything from a database that you need and nothing you don't need. Many compusearchers get too specific, too soon and miss items of information that are important to them.

     There is a logical winnowing process that you should follow; a process that begins with attempting to find everything in the database that is potentially relevant. If you find too much on a particular subject you need to refine your search. If there is little or nothing to be found, you will feel relieved that you kept your search broad from the outset.
computer
     Using the simple, easy-to-learn processes described in this section, you'll find that with most searches, your results list is finalized in just a few mouse clicks. If you find too much information, a search can be modified by:

• including or excluding additional search terms
  
• restricting the time period of the search
  
• restricting the number of jurisdictions queried

     If at the outset of a new search, the purpose is to find everything of potential relevance on the first pass, you would NEVER restrict the date of your search on the first pass. One exception to this general rule would be if you knew that a particular statute, regulation or rule hit the books on a particular date; then restricting your search from that date would make sense.

     One of the obvious benefits of TheLaw.net is that your research has a national scope. The database that you have direct access to contains millions of opinions from more than 200 Federal and state jurisdictions.

     Computer-based result lists can seem daunting on those occasions when you find too many opinions that match your search criteria. Keep in mind, however, that the opinion ranked at the top of your results list contains the largest number of references to your search terms and they digress in descending order from there. The opinion ranked last on your list of results probably mentions your search term once in paragraph 72 and has never been cited for a reason you care about.

     Finally, when conducting Federal research on novel questions, best practices dictates that you not restrict the jurisdictions searched on the first pass. Select "All." Most law is not knowable. Last year in the Federal system 325,000 cases were filed. Yet only approximately 5,000 opinions annually make it into the Federal Reporter. Accordingly, you may be surprised to find that the first opinion on the results list from your primary circuit is the tenth entry on your All Feds Search, due to the fact that several opinions from non-primary jurisdictions contain a larger number of references to your search terms. You wouldn't want to miss out on the potential insight such opinions may well contribute to your brief or memo, even if you never cite them.


Keyword (Boolean) Search

Although Keyword (or “Boolean”) searches are the most powerful and flexible way to search, they are also very easy to use. Keyword searches are familiar to most users of search on the Web, and support standard search syntaxes of AND, OR, NOT, ( ), “e”. Using "w/n" between two search terms (where n is a number between 2 and 50) will find cases in which the two terms appear within n words of each other. But it’s also very easy to run unstructured Keyword searches and get great results. TheLaw.net uses "implied AND" by default, which means that where no connector is used between words, TheLaw.net searches for both. A keyword search for summary judgment, for example returns cases that use both the words “summary” and “judgment” and nothing fancier is needed than that. Of course, if you prefer a more precise search, you can use the full suite of Boolean search operators.

NATURAL LANGUAGE Natural language searches are much less precise, but are a good place to start if you don’t have exact search terms. Natural Language searches return the best 100 results for your search, even if some of your terms don’t appear in the results, or even if more than 100 cases contain your search terms. This search works well if you want to include certain words in your keyword search that might or might not appear in the result. For example, if you wanted to search for the phrase “Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous filing”, a keyword search would only list cases using the word “frivolous”, whereas a Natural Language search would return the most relevant 100 results, even if the word “frivolous” did not appear.

-

WHAT IS A "FREE NUMBER?"
A "Free Number" is any number assigned by a governmental instrumentality to an item of information that is controlling your search. Free numbers make terrific search terms because they are so unique. 404(b) is a much better search term that probative. Use free numbers to search by by statute, rule or regulation to first find any potentially relevant judicial opinions in the database that construe the specific item of information driving your search. Thereafter, find only those opinions that construe the controlling item but only for the specific reason(s) you specify.


USE FREE NUMBERS WHENEVER POSSIBLE
A person who enters summary judgment as their search query is assured of returning an overwhelming list of diffuse opinions mentioning summary judgment mostly for reasons that are irrelevant to the search. In contrast, the person who is focused, for example, on the number of the controlling procedural rule and enters 12(b)(6) as their search term, will quickly retrieve any relevant matching opinions from the database in one mouse click.


COMPUTERS READ ALL THE OPINIONS IN THE DATABASE
As most legal researchers know, West Publishing really hit on something when they developed the Key Number System back in the late 19th century. But, if you think about it, the idea of binning 100,000 points of law in 400 categories is pretty ridiculous. But, it's the best people could do with books. It was an indispensable tool because the alternative was to read all of the opinions in the library to find the three opinions they needed. A computer, however, does read all of the opinions in a database and presents you with a list of results that match your search criteria. The more specific the search criteria, the better. In most instances, numbers are inherently more unique to a situation than a series of words. Compusearching is also easier on the back!


FREE NUMBER SEARCHING QUICKLY RESOLVES YOUR SEARCH TO "YES" OR "NO"
Your ability to fashion specific search queries by borrowing these so-called free numbers, will generate result lists that are so relevant, so specific and so on-point that you might have the time to actually read an opinion or two, rather than slogging through hundreds of irrelevant headnotes. TheLaw.net Corporation claims no proprietary interest in free numbers; far from it. Free numbers are publicly available to anyone and free number searches can be performed with most any decent database. Take a look at the sample searches provided below and see what you think.


HOW TO FIND OPINIONS USING FREE NUMBERS
Federal and state legislatures assign numbers to laws so they can be codified. For example, there are essentially three citation formats used by legislatures when codifying statutes. We briefly list them below, followed by a sample query for each. On the rest of this page we provide further explanation and examples of how to quickly refine a search query so that you find only those opinions that have construed the controlling item of information for just the reason(s) you specify.

►Title and Section Number Separated by Code Identifier as in 18 U.S.C. sec. 1344.
The query: 18 w/5 1344 will find opinions that have construed this statute. See below for more details.

►Code Title Followed by Number as in California Probate Code Section 245.
The query: "probate code" w/5 245 will find opinions that have construed this statute. See below for more details.

►Unique Numeric Format as in Florida Statute 350.043.
This number is so unique that the query 350.043 will find opinions that have construed this statute.


MORE DETAILS
The United States Code and the Vermont Statutes are but two examples of statutory bodies that separate the title number and section number with a code identifier. Examples: 18 U.S.C. sec. 1344 and 12 V.S.A. sec. 401. Several additional states also use this format for their statutes and regulations. To find judicial opinions in a database that have construed a statute following this format you could enter the full citation as above, or with the section symbol. Alternatively, we suggest that you sidestep that tedium by simply entering: 18 w/5 1344 or 12 w/5 401 which simply asks the search engine to return opinions where the section number appears within five words of the title number. A w/5 query is easier to enter than the full citation and you avoid having to worry about spacing, dots and section symbols.

WINNOW YOUR RESULTS WITH ADDITIONAL SEARCH TERMS
If after keeping in mind that the opinion ranked first on your list of results contains the largest number of references to your search terms, you still think you have located an unmanageable number of judicial opinions, refine your search by adding a search term that will result in a list of opinions that have construed the statute only for reasons you care about.

"18 w/5 1344' and "false loan application" will find opinions that have construed the Federal bank fraud statute in the context of a false loan application and it will ignore those opinions involving other conduct that falls within the ambit of this broadly worded statute.

Occasionally, a free number standing alone will not be enough to ensure that your search results are unambiguous. section 245 of the California Probate Code, for example. Entering 245 will return documents that contain any reference to 245. However, entering "probate code" and 245 and "contrary intention" will find any opinions that have construed this statute for the reason specified. In this example, the phrase contrary intention is borrowed directly from the text of the statute.

-