---

name: prompt-pack-case-law-research-prompt
description: Use when a disputes lawyer, in-house counsel, or legal researcher needs a structured case law research output on a specific legal topic, covering leading authorities, their facts, legal principles, court decisions, and practical takeaways for practitioners. Designed for MENA, DIFC/ADGM, GCC, UK, EU, and any specified jurisdiction; acknowledges that case law plays a different role in civil-law versus common-law systems.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: prompt-pack.case-law-research-prompt
category: prompt-pack
practice_area: disputes-litigation
priority: P2
intent: [research, case-law-research-prompt, authorities, jurisprudence, legal-research]
related: [prompt-pack-case-assessment-memo, prompt-pack-complex-law-simple-summary, prompt-pack-convert-law-into-checklist, prompt-pack-litigation-strategy-memo]
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Case Law Research Prompt

Case law research is the backbone of legal argument in common-law systems and increasingly influential in civil-law jurisdictions where courts publish reasoned opinions. This skill produces a structured research note covering the leading authorities on a given topic, formatted for immediate use in a court submission, arbitration brief, or client advice.

When to use this

• Preparing a skeleton argument or statement of case that must cite controlling authorities.
• A client or deal team needs to understand how courts have interpreted a specific clause type, legal doctrine, or statutory provision.
• The lawyer needs to brief junior associates on the leading cases before drafting submissions.
• Building a "state of the law" section for a legal opinion or an expert report.
• Checking whether the law has evolved since the lawyer last researched the point.

Required inputs

Input	Why it matters	Sensible default
Legal topic or issue	Defines the research question	Ask the user to be as specific as possible
Jurisdiction(s)	Case law is jurisdiction-specific; common-law vs. civil-law output differs fundamentally	Ask the user — do not default to US or UK
Court level or forum	Supreme courts / cassation courts carry more weight	Default to appellate and supreme courts unless stated otherwise
Intended use	Submission, opinion, client note, academic — shapes the depth and format	Ask the user
Time period	Recent cases most relevant; sometimes historical development matters	Default to last 15 years unless stated otherwise

Optional inputs

• Specific cases the user already knows about (to confirm they are included and to add authority).
• Opposing authority the user is trying to distinguish.
• Whether secondary sources (legal texts, academic commentary) should be included.
• Target audience (judge, client, arbitral tribunal) — shapes the technical depth.

Research methodology

Step 1 — Frame the legal question precisely

Restate the topic as a focused legal question (e.g., "When will an English court imply a duty of good faith into a commercial contract?"). A sharp question produces better-targeted results.

Step 2 — Identify the governing legal system

• Common law (DIFC, ADGM, UK, US, HK, SG): case law is binding precedent; landmark decisions must be cited.
• Civil law (UAE onshore, KSA, LB, EG, FR, most MENA): codified law is primary; court decisions (particularly cassation courts) have persuasive authority and are increasingly published and cited.
• Mixed / hybrid (Qatar QFC, Bahrain): apply the rules of the system governing the dispute.

Step 3 — Structure the research note per case

For each case, provide:

Field	Content
Case name	Full case name as reported
Jurisdiction / court	Court and country
Year decided	Year of the decision
Facts	2–4 sentence summary of the material facts
Legal issue	The precise question the court decided
Decision	The outcome and the court's reasoning
Principle established	The rule of law the case stands for, in one sentence
Practical takeaway	What a practitioner should do or avoid based on this case
Current status	Still good law / overruled / qualified by later cases

Step 4 — Organize authorities

Present cases in one or more of the following structures depending on the user's need:

• Chronological: Shows evolution of the law.
• By principle: Groups cases under the sub-rules they establish.
• For vs. against: Useful when the law is contested or the research is for adversarial use.

Step 5 — Synthesize

After the per-case analysis, provide a one-paragraph synthesis: what the current state of the law is, where the uncertainty lies, and any notable trends (judicial activism, divergence between jurisdictions, etc.).

Civil-law jurisdiction guidance

In UAE (onshore), KSA, Lebanon, and Egypt, the primary authorities are:

• The relevant Civil Code or Commercial Code (named, well-established provisions).
• Decisions of the Court of Cassation (Mahkamat al-Naqd in LB/EG; Supreme Court in UAE; Supreme Court / Board of Grievances in KSA).
• These decisions are often unpublished in searchable commercial databases; the researcher should acknowledge this limitation and note which decisions have been officially published.

In DIFC / ADGM, decisions are published on the respective court websites and follow common-law citation formats; binding precedent applies.

In international arbitration (ICC, LCIA, DIAC, ICSID), there is no doctrine of binding precedent; tribunals cite prior awards as persuasive authority only. Acknowledge this distinction when citing arbitral awards.

What not to do

• Do not fabricate case names, citations, or holdings. If a case cannot be verified, say so.
• Do not treat the same case as authoritative across different legal systems without noting the jurisdictional distinction.
• Do not omit unfavorable authorities — the lawyer needs to know what they face.
• Do not confuse persuasive and binding authority without flagging the distinction.

Output format

A research note structured as:

1. Research question — one sentence.
2. Jurisdiction and legal system — one sentence.
3. Leading cases — per-case tables as above.
4. Synthesis — one paragraph.
5. Open questions / limitations — any gaps in the research, sources that could not be verified, or areas where expert local counsel should confirm.

Footer: "Research note prepared by [Author/AI tool]; not a substitute for legal advice; verify all citations before reliance."

Limits and escalation

• AI-generated case law research must be verified against primary sources before filing in any court or tribunal. Hallucinated citations have led to adverse costs orders.
• In KSA and LB, the availability of published court decisions is limited; escalate to local counsel for authoritative research.
• Where the law is actively evolving (e.g., AI liability, crypto-asset regulation), flag that recent regulatory guidance or unreported decisions may not be captured.

Related skills

• [[prompt-pack-case-assessment-memo]]
• [[prompt-pack-complex-law-simple-summary]]
• [[prompt-pack-convert-law-into-checklist]]
• [[prompt-pack-litigation-strategy-memo]]
• [[prompt-pack-arbitration-statement-of-claim]]