Search technology tailor-made for law
Next-Gen Search
The most cutting-edge NLP, trained on the law
Parallel Search leverages the latest natural language processing methods, including deep neural networks trained on millions of judicial opinions.
Keywordless results
Search by Sentence
Better way to search. Better results.
Traditional search technology matches based on words and synonyms. That only gets you so far in the law, where arguments are based on concepts and analogies. Parallel Search uses complete sentences to find you results with matching concepts, even if they have none of the same language.
Featured
- Display relevant results
State v. Recht
221 W. Va. 380 (W. Va. 2007)
…Naum is possible under such conditions and/or whether something else is more likely to have caused the neurological injury claimed. What Dr. Shepek may properly be prohibited from testifying about, however, is the actual “biomechanics” of the accident itself; i.e., whether the mechanics of the accident were sufficient to create some level of force and whether that force would cause an occupant to strike his head on the roof of the car. Dr. Shepek is qualified to render an opinion regarding Dr. Naum’s alleged neurological injury. He has not been qualified to render an opinion on biomechanics.
Conceptually similar facts and legal issues
Delgado v. Unruh
No. 14-CV-01262-JAR (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2017)
…is flawed. Any reading of these opinions reveals that it is squarely about the type of bodily injuries that would or would not result from the mechanical forces generated by the accident, which is biomechanical, injury-related testimony. Dr. Stallbaumer is not qualified to give such opinions as he has no training relating to biomechanics or kinematic studies. He is not qualified to testify about the forces involved in this crash. While Dr. Stallbaumer has 15 hours in accident reconstruction training from the Spine Research Institute, various courses in accident reconstruction, and some study…
Conceptually similar facts and legal issues
Featured
- Display relevant results
Broders v. Heise
924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996)
Our holding does not mean that only a neurosurgeon can testify about the cause in fact of death from an injury to the brain, or even that an emergency room physician could never so testify. What is required is that the offering party establish that the expert has “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” regarding the specific issue before the court which would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular subject…
No relevant facts or legal issues
Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Serv
No. 14-CV-01262-JAR (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2017)
… education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. A qualified expert is one who possesses “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” I.R.E. 702. Formal training is not…
… other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or…
No relevant facts or legal issues
Search by Sentence
Better way to search. Better results.
Traditional search technology matches based on words and synonyms. That only gets you so far in the law, where arguments are based on concepts and analogies. Parallel Search uses complete sentences to find you results with matching concepts, even if they have none of the same language.
Featured
- Display relevant results
State v. Recht
221 W. Va. 380 (W. Va. 2007)
…Naum is possible under such conditions and/or whether something else is more likely to have caused the neurological injury claimed. What Dr. Shepek may properly be prohibited from testifying about, however, is the actual “biomechanics” of the accident itself; i.e., whether the mechanics of the accident were sufficient to create some level of force and whether that force would cause an occupant to strike his head on the roof of the car. Dr. Shepek is qualified to render an opinion regarding Dr. Naum’s alleged neurological injury. He has not been qualified to render an opinion on biomechanics.
Conceptually similar facts and legal issues
Delgado v. Unruh
No. 14-CV-01262-JAR (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2017)
…is flawed. Any reading of these opinions reveals that it is squarely about the type of bodily injuries that would or would not result from the mechanical forces generated by the accident, which is biomechanical, injury-related testimony. Dr. Stallbaumer is not qualified to give such opinions as he has no training relating to biomechanics or kinematic studies. He is not qualified to testify about the forces involved in this crash. While Dr. Stallbaumer has 15 hours in accident reconstruction training from the Spine Research Institute, various courses in accident reconstruction, and some study…
Conceptually similar facts and legal issues
Featured
- Display relevant results
Broders v. Heise
924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996)
Our holding does not mean that only a neurosurgeon can testify about the cause in fact of death from an injury to the brain, or even that an emergency room physician could never so testify. What is required is that the offering party establish that the expert has “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” regarding the specific issue before the court which would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular subject…
No relevant facts or legal issues
Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Serv
No. 14-CV-01262-JAR (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2017)
… education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. A qualified expert is one who possesses “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” I.R.E. 702. Formal training is not…
… other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or…
No relevant facts or legal issues
Expert Engineers
Meet some of the engineers behind Parallel Search
Parallel Search was developed in-house by Casetext’s team of expert data scientists and machine learning engineers.
Javed Qadrud-Din, Director of Machine Learning
Javed is both a programmer and a lawyer. He holds a JD from Harvard Law School and has been coding since childhood. Prior to joining Casetext, he worked for two years at a Silicon Valley law firm, and three years in IBM’s Watson Group, where he helped develop machine-learning-based tools for the legal industry.
Gabe Pack, Principal Software Engineer
As a graduate of Georgia Tech with a Bachelors in Computer Engineering, Gabe has over 20 years of experience developing software for a wide range of companies and industries.
Martin Gajek, Machine Learning Engineer
Martin Gajek was previously an R&D engineer at a semiconductor memory start-up where he developed low energy memory architectures and algorithms for AI accelerators. Martin holds a Ph.D in Applied Physics from Sorbonne University and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in Physics at U.C. Berkeley.
Ravi Soni, Data Scientist
Ravi graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in Applied Mathematics. Prior to joining Casetext, Ravi worked as a Legal Assistant and as a Product Management Intern at HP.
Built into the Compose workflow
The most cutting-edge search technology, built into the most efficient brief-drafting workflow.