See how a set of court opinions treats the same question
When you read a line of cases, the useful picture is the pattern: which test the courts keep applying, which facts tip the outcome, where courts disagree and which earlier decision they all trace back to. Put the opinions in one Search+ workspace, ask for recurring themes, and then trace each theme to the passages that support it before you build an argument on it.
Creating an account needs no payment.
Last updated October 2026
How to find themes across opinions
- Gather the opinions in one workspace
Upload the decisions you are comparing, up to 10 at a time, and add more in later batches. Clear file names, such as the case name and year, make the citations easier to follow.
- Write the lens once
In Workspace Context, state the question you are tracking, for example "Focus on how each court decides whether a contract term was unconscionable; note the facts each court found important." Search+ applies the lens to each question you ask in this workspace.
- Ask for themes, then trace each one
Ask "What tests do these opinions apply, and where do they differ?" Then ask a follow-up about each theme so you can open the cited passage in every opinion that supports it.
Cross-opinion questions to ask
Which legal test do these opinions apply to the issue, and do any of them phrase it differently?
Which facts appear in the cases where the claim succeeded but not in those where it failed?
Do any of these courts reach opposite conclusions on the same question, and how do they explain it?
Which earlier decision is cited by most of these opinions?
Does the reasoning shift between the older and the newer decisions in this set?
What to look for across a set of opinions
Courts often apply a multi-factor test. Seeing which factors each court actually weighs shows where the real argument lies.
Outcomes often turn on a small set of facts. Grouping cases by those facts is more useful than grouping them by result.
Different courts can reach different answers on the same question. Note which court said what, since the weight of each depends on the jurisdiction.
A few foundational decisions are often cited across a whole line of cases. Finding them tells you what to read in full.
Search+ finds themes in chat and cites the opinions behind each one, so every pattern can be checked against the text.
Theme types, an example and a question
| Theme type | Example | A question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Shared rule | Several courts apply the same balancing test | Which opinions state the test, and in what words? |
| Decisive facts | Notice given in writing tends to decide the issue | In which cases did written notice matter? |
| Split | Two courts read the same statute differently | Where do these opinions disagree, and why? |
| Foundational case | One older decision is cited throughout | How does each opinion use that earlier case? |
| Dissent pattern | Dissents raise the same objection | What do the dissents in this set have in common? |
What theme-finding across opinions is in Search+
Finding themes in Search+ means asking a question across every opinion in a workspace and reading a chat answer that groups recurring points and cites the opinions behind each one. It is a cited answer you can check, not a coded dataset or a citator report.
Questions about themes across court opinions
Can Search+ tell me how a group of courts handles an issue?
Will it find a split between courts?
Can it show which earlier case the opinions keep citing?
Does it tell me whether these cases are still good law?
Is a theme summary legal advice?
Find the pattern in a line of cases
Start a workspace, upload the opinions, and ask what they have in common and where they split.
Start a workspace