Legal Intelligence API

Your legal AI queries documents. A document cannot tell you whether a holding still applies, which circuits it binds, or whether the language came from the majority or a dissent. We extract the assertion from the document and make it queryable.

Federal case law 1951 to present. California 2000 to present.

Talk to a Legal AI Expert →
75+
Years Covered
federal courts 1951–present
13
Circuits
all U.S. courts of appeals
Continuous
Update Cadence
opinions added as published
JSON
Delivery
API · Snowflake · flat file
The Data

Not documents. Assertions.

Most legal data products give you documents.

We give you structured assertions.

SubjectCourt or legal entity
ActionWhat was decided, held, ruled, or stated
ObjectThe legal proposition, right, or obligation
ProvenanceCourt · Docket · Date · Circuit
TreatmentHow subsequent courts have treated this assertion
JurisdictionWhich circuits it binds, which it persuades

Without it, "grounded in authoritative sources"
means "grounded in PDFs."

The Output

Every assertion, structured and machine-readable.

The JSON record for a case isn't a document summary. It's the assertion itself: typed, traced, and jurisdiction-stamped. Every record carries what was decided, who decided it, which courts are bound by it, and whether it's still standing.

Assertion type: Holding, Dicta, or Procedural
Treatment: overruled, narrowed, affirmed, distinguished
Jurisdictional scope: binding vs. persuasive by circuit
Full provenance: court, docket, date, citation
Delivery: API  ·  Bulk JSON  ·  Snowflake share on request
{
  "assertion_id": "fed.scotus.2024.0451.h01",
  "type": "HOLDING",
  "subject": "agency",
  "action": "may_not_defer",
  "object": "ambiguous_statutory_interpretation",
  "court": "US Supreme Court",
  "circuit": "nationwide",
  "docket": "22-451",
  "decided": "2024-06-28",
  "citation": "Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369",
  "treatment": "OVERRULES",
  "overrules": "Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837",
  "confidence": 0.97,
  "binding_circuits": [
    "1st","2nd","3rd","4th","5th",
    "6th","7th","8th","9th","10th",
    "11th","DC","FED"
  ]
}

A citation tells you a court spoke.
The assertion tells you what it decided.

How It's Built

Not a search index.
A structured reasoning network.

The pipeline extracts assertions at the sentence level. Each one is typed, cross-referenced, speaker-attributed, and jurisdiction-stamped at extraction time, before it ever reaches storage.

The output is a federated network of named knowledge graphs, one per assertion category. Holdings are stored separately from dicta. Citations are stored separately from treatment records. Each graph is queryable independently and traversable as a unified network.

This is pipeline-extracted, not generated. The same input produces the same output every time. There are no stochastic components between document and assertion record.

01ParseDocument segmented into typed structural units
02ExtractAssertions identified and attributed at sentence level
03ClassifyType, speaker, modality, jurisdiction, and polarity assigned
04VerifyConfidence scored. Quality gate applied. Uncertain output withheld.
Quality Gate

Every extracted assertion moves through a two-state quality machine before export. Assertions that pass become part of the network. Assertions that fail are withheld. The pipeline does not ship uncertain output.

What Only We Do

Three distinctions that change
what's actually queryable.

Speaker Attribution
Dissent ≠ holding.
Every assertion is attributed to a specific judicial speaker: majority, concurrence, dissent. Most systems treat all text equally. We don't. Only majority holdings are bindable. Querying the wrong speaker returns the wrong law.
Scalia, J., dissenting: "The court errs in its application of Chevron." Indexed separately. Not surfaced as a holding.
Legal Typology
Every edge typed by Hohfeld.
Legal relationships are not all equivalent. A duty is not a right. A privilege is not a liability. We type every relationship in the graph using the Hohfeld framework, the only formal ontology built for legal reasoning.
Subject: employer · Relation: DUTY · Object: provide_accommodation. Not a "related to" edge. A typed legal obligation.
Temporal Precision
Three clocks per assertion.
Every assertion carries the opinion date, the statute effective date, and the applicability window, stored separately. A 1978 ruling on a 1964 statute that was superseded in 2010 is treated as exactly that. Not as "old law."
Opinion: 1978-03-12 · Statute effective: 1964-07-02 · Good law through: 2010-04-05
Accuracy

97% on a multi-category gold evaluation.

Extraction accuracy is measured against a human-labeled gold set, not self-reported on a single metric. The evaluation scores across seven independent classification categories, testing the full output chain from sentence-level extraction to final assertion record.

A 97% overall score means the system gets the right answer across intent, attribution, polarity, routing, bucket, modality, and conditional detection, at the same time, on the same sentence.

Speech Act Classification100%
Intent100%
Bucket Classification93%
Conditional Detection96%
Polarity97%
Attribution97%
Overall97.1%

Human-labeled gold set. Multi-category scoring. Evaluated on held-out federal case law corpus.

Coverage.

Opinions added as published. Updated continuously.

SCOTUS Supreme Court Binding nationwide · 1951–present
1 First Circuit ME · NH · MA · RI · PR 1951–present
2 Second Circuit NY · VT · CT 1951–present
3 Third Circuit PA · NJ · DE · VI 1951–present
4 Fourth Circuit MD · VA · WV · NC · SC 1951–present
5 Fifth Circuit TX · LA · MS 1951–present
6 Sixth Circuit MI · OH · KY · TN 1951–present
7 Seventh Circuit IL · IN · WI 1951–present
8 Eighth Circuit MN · IA · MO · ND · SD · NE · AR 1951–present
9 Ninth Circuit CA · OR · WA · AK · HI · NV · ID · MT · AZ 1951–present
10 Tenth Circuit CO · KS · NM · OK · UT · WY 1951–present
11 Eleventh Circuit AL · FL · GA 1981–present
DC D.C. Circuit Washington D.C. 1951–present
Fed Federal Circuit Patents · Gov't contracts · Trade 1982–present
Federal
1951 to Present
All 13 courts of appeals: 1st–11th circuits, D.C. Circuit, and Federal Circuit. Supreme Court opinions included.
California
2000 to Present
California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. Full appellate coverage.
Other Jurisdictions
Accessible
Other corpora are available. Tell us which jurisdiction matters for your use case and we'll scope it with you.
Talk to our team →
Treatment Tracking

Legal authority is not static. Omniarch tracks the full treatment arc of every holding, from establishment through every subsequent court that cited, narrowed, or overruled it.

1984
Chevron v. NRDC
ESTABLISHED
2001
United States v. Mead
NARROWED
2015
King v. Burwell
QUESTIONED
2022
West Virginia v. EPA
NARROWED
2024 NOW
Loper Bright v. Raimondo
OVERRULED
Established / Affirmed Narrowed / Distinguished Overruled / Reversed
How We Fit

Westlaw tells you a case exists.
We tell you what it decided.

KeyCite and Shepard's are the best citation verification tools available. They were built for human lawyers in a research session.

Omniarch structures what was actually decided and makes it queryable at the moment it matters. We're complementary to Westlaw, not a replacement for it.

The question isn't "does this citation exist?"

The question is "does this holding apply here, now?"

Usage-based licensing. Enterprise contracts scoped by coverage and volume. Contact us to scope →

Thou Shalt
Not Lie.

Talk to a Legal AI Expert → or reach us at hello@omniarch.inc