---
name: paxton-legal-research-research-authority-verification
description: Verify one legal authority (a named case, statute, rule or agency decision, or a proposition tied to one) through Paxton Legal Research by confirming it exists with the right title and identifier, reading its source text, and separating the holding from argument and quoted authority before reporting. Use when the user asks to find, pull, check or confirm a case or decision, asks what a case actually held, wants a quote verified, or asks whether a citation supports a proposition.
---

# Verify a legal authority

The job is to establish, from the source itself, that an authority exists, is the one the user means, and says what the user thinks it says. A search hit is a lead, not proof. Citation history (is it still good law) is a separate job; this one is about the content and identity of the source.

## 1. Pin down the exact authority before searching

Write down the identifier you are trying to match: reporter citation, docket or appeal number, statute section, agency decision number and year, court and date. Also write the proposition the user cares about, in one sentence. Ambiguity here causes most wrong-case errors, so if the user gives only a party name, ask for a court, year or citation, or search and present the candidates for them to pick.

## 2. Find it with the right tool, with scope

- Court opinions: `search_case_law`. Set jurisdiction and a date range when you know them. A narrow filter that returns nothing does not prove the case is absent; widen one filter at a time.
- Statutes, regulations and rules: `search_legal_research`. Search by the section number and the rule text, then by the concept if the number fails.
- EEOC and NLRB decisions: `search_administrative_decisions`. An exact appeal or case number is the strongest query; it returns supporting passages as well as the decision.
- Use `search_legal_research` for a general proposition when you do not yet know which authority supports it, then move to the specific tools once you have a candidate.

## 3. Match identity before you read content

Compare the returned title, court or agency, date and identifier against what you wrote in step 1, field by field. A case with a similar name, a different year, or a neighbouring appeal number is a different authority. If any field differs, say so and do not proceed as if it matched. Quote the returned identifier exactly in your report.

## 4. Read the source text, not the snippet

Open the candidate with `get_source_text`. A search snippet is chosen for relevance and can be misleading out of context. Read enough of the opinion or decision to find:

- **The holding:** what the court or agency decided on the question presented. Usually in the opening summary, the conclusion, or the sentences beginning "we hold" or "we conclude".
- **The reasoning:** the rule and the analysis that produced it.
- **Dicta:** observations not necessary to the result. Label them as such.
- **Arguments:** what a party or the dissent argued. These are not the court's position.
- **Quoted authority:** language the court took from another source. The quotation is not the court's own statement; if you need the quoted case's view, verify that case separately.

## 5. Test the proposition against the holding

Compare the user's proposition with the holding, not with the whole opinion. Classify the fit:

- **Supports:** the holding states the proposition in substance.
- **Supports with limits:** holds it only on specific facts, a particular jurisdiction, or a statute since amended.
- **Dicta only:** the proposition appears but was not decided.
- **Does not support:** the holding is different, or the passage the user cited is an argument or a quotation.

If the user quotes language, check the exact wording against the source text character by character, and report any difference. Paraphrase is not a quotation.

## 6. Use search results for corroboration, not as a substitute

For an important proposition, one authority is rarely enough. Run a second search from a different angle (different terms, the statute the case interprets, a companion agency decision) and note whether the same rule appears. Stop when further searching stops changing the picture; do not chase every hit.

## Common patterns and traps

- **Right party names, wrong case.** Common names recur across years and courts. The identifier check in step 3 catches this; the party name never does.
- **The headnote or summary is not the holding.** Summaries condense and can overstate. Confirm in the body.
- **The quote is from the dissent or from a party brief.** Check who is speaking at the quoted passage.
- **Statute quoted from an old version.** Note the date of the text returned and whether the user's version is current; say you cannot confirm currency here if you cannot.
- **Agency decisions are not courts.** They can be persuasive or binding within the agency's process, depending on context; do not describe them as binding precedent without saying so.
- **A supporting passage is not the decision.** The passages returned with an agency search are excerpts. Read the decision before concluding what it held.
- **Good result does not mean complete or current.** The connector's own documentation says research results require professional review. Say what you did not check.

## Output

```
Authority: <title as returned> | <court or agency> | <date> | <identifier as returned>
Identity check: <matches / differs in: field> 
Proposition: <the user's statement>
Holding: <one or two sentences, in the source's terms>
Fit: <supports / supports with limits / dicta only / does not support> — <why>
Quotations checked: <exact / differs: detail / none>
Arguments and quoted authority to be aware of: <list, labelled as such>
Corroboration: <other sources checked and what they said, or none>
Not checked: <citation history, currency of statute text, anything else>
```

## Rules

- Do not report a holding you have not read in the source text; a snippet is not enough.
- Never present an argument, a dissent or a quoted passage as the court's own position.
- Do not treat a search hit as confirmation that an authority exists until the identifier matches.
- Do not state whether an authority is still good law; that is the citation-history job. Say it has not been checked here.
- This connector does not change data or matters; no approval step applies to these reads. Do not include confidential client facts in the search query, only the authority identifiers and the legal question.
- Source links may ask the user to sign in to Paxton separately; say so if a link is the only route to the text.

## Done when

- The authority's identifier, court or agency, and date match the target, and you have quoted the identifier as returned.
- The holding is stated from the source text, and the fit with the user's proposition is classified.
- Every quotation the user relies on has been compared with the source, or flagged as unverified.
- The "Not checked" line states honestly what remains (citation history, currency, completeness).