Connect your AI

Every one is read-only. The limit under each is what the tool itself reports on every call, and your AI is expected to repeat it rather than summarise it away.

• search

  Finds cases by name. Punctuation-insensitive match on the case name, returning case metadata: id, name, date filed, precedential status, citation count.

  Limit to carry: Metadata only, no opinion text, and not concept search. It finds a case by what it is called, never by what it is about. Nothing filed after 30 September 2026 is here to be found.

• fts

  Keyword search (BM25) over the stored opinion text. Returns the opinion id, its case metadata, a relevance rank, and a snippet with the matched words marked.

  Limit to carry: Exact words with no stemming, so “petition” will not match “petitions”, and every word has to appear. A case that makes the same argument in different words will not come back. It searches the best extracted text held per record: 8,751,062 records carry 500 or more characters, 1,993,069 carry 1 to 499, and 1,798 have no text and cannot match at all. Nothing filed after 30 September 2026 is searchable here at all; that is the filing cutoff, and the 2026-07-18 scan date is only when the stored text was measured.

• semantic_search

  Concept search. Ranks opinions whose meaning is close to a plain-language description, covering the gap keyword search leaves. Returns one row per case with the passage the case matched on.

  Limit to carry: Ranking runs over a partial embedded subset of the 10,745,929 records, so relevant authority that was never embedded cannot appear at any position, for any search, and nothing filed after 30 September 2026 is in the collection to be embedded in the first place. Similarity is a signal, not treatment or validity. The matched passage is re-derived rather than stored and is sometimes absent, which is stated rather than filled in. This route depends on an embedding service that can be down; when it is, the call returns a visible 503 carrying its coverage note. That is an outage, and an AI client must say so instead of reporting “no results found”.

• similar

  Given one opinion, returns other opinions whose wording overlaps it, ranked by keyword match.

  Limit to carry: Wording overlap only. It is not a check that the neighbours address the same issue, reach the same result, or remain good law, and it is not a completeness guarantee. No neighbour filed after 30 September 2026 can be returned, because none is in the collection.

• citation

  Resolves a reporter citation such as 347 U.S. 483 to the matching case in the mirror, optionally with its member opinions and parallel citations.

  Limit to carry: A miss means the citation is not in this mirror, not that the case does not exist. Resolving one confirms the case is here; it is not a good-law, treatment, or validity signal.

• cluster

  Full case detail by case id: case metadata, the opinions filed in it, and parallel citations.

  Limit to carry: Metadata only. Opinion text comes from the opinion tool.

• opinion

  The full stored text of one opinion, plus its metadata, with flags naming which source the text was extracted from and whether it was truncated.

  Limit to carry: This is stored text, not live CourtListener, not legal advice, and it carries no treatment or good-law status of any kind.

• citations

  Given one opinion, lists the cases it cites, or the cases that cite it.

  Limit to carry: A textual reference only: an edge means one opinion’s text names the other. It does not say the citing court followed, distinguished, criticised, or overruled it, and it is not a Shepardize or KeyCite result. It is a bounded sample of a partial mirror: at most 1000 references are examined, the ones resolving to a loaded case are shown, and the rest are only counted. Treat the result as a floor, never a total. It is also blind to anything filed after 30 September 2026, so citing opinions filed after that date are missing from every cited_by answer.

• parentheticals

  Given one case, returns the one-line descriptions later courts wrote about it, relayed word for word, each one naming the opinion that wrote it.

  Limit to carry: A parenthetical is a later court’s own description of an earlier case. It is not that case’s holding, not a summary this service wrote, and not treatment, validity, or good law. Coverage is partial and uneven, 6,561,861 lines across the collection and skewed toward cases that get cited often, so an empty result means no line was extracted for that case, never that no court has discussed it. Near-duplicate lines arrive pre-grouped by CourtListener, not by us, and the one line shown per group is our pick, the highest score in the group. That score ships with the data and we make no claim about what it measures, so it is not importance, quality, authority, or agreement. At most 2,000 lines are examined per request, so every count is a floor. 2,751 lines collection-wide were written by an opinion that is not in this mirror and are dropped everywhere, because a line you cannot trace to its author is a line you cannot check. Nothing written after 30 September 2026 is here.

• treatment

  For one case record, the later courts that reported it overruled, abrogated, superseded, reversed, or vacated, each row carrying that court’s own sentence, cut from its opinion and relayed unchanged.

  Limit to carry: This half only falsifies. There is no opposite half: no label here means a case is fine, and nothing in it will ever tell you a case is still good law. An empty result is the ordinary outcome and means nothing at all. The label is a filter, never the answer. 68.7% of the entries that fire are expressly partial, the familiar “overruled on other grounds”, so read the sentence rather than the word, and a row whose sentence cannot be cut is dropped rather than shown as a bare label. It is automated and unverified. Of the readings it makes, 96.0% were right in a hand-check of 150 (90% interval 91.6% to 98.2%), and of 100 readings it declined to make, 99.0% were right to decline. How much it misses is unknown for this collection: the only figure that exists, 64.8%, was measured against Supreme Court cases only and is an upper bound there, never a rate for the collection. There is also a structural gap, because these are later courts reporting an overruling rather than the overruling decision itself. Roe carries no row from Dobbs, Chevron none from Loper Bright. A reporter citation can sit on more than one record here, and counts are never added across them. Nothing filed after 30 September 2026 is here to report anything.

• brief_check

  The same check pointed at a whole document. Send a brief or a motion and get back the case citations it contains, whether each resolves in this collection, and any court-reported negative history with the citing court’s sentence. It also takes the words you put in quotation marks beside a citation and looks for them in the opinion text stored here for that case, and it scans the same document for the personal identifiers a court rule keeps out of a public filing, showing you where each one sits with the value masked.

  Limit to carry: Nothing is ever cleared. There is no pass mark: a document that comes back with no flags has not been checked and found sound, it has only failed to match a negative-only instrument with known gaps, and every limit on the treatment tool above applies here unchanged. Three outcomes only: negative history reported; no row found, which is not a clearance; and not held in this collection, echoed exactly as your document wrote it, never corrected and never swapped for a successor. Short forms are counted, not checked. Id., supra, and a bare party name are tallied and never resolved, so a case cited once and referred to eight times is checked once, and statutes, regulations, rules, and secondary sources are not checked at all. At most 200 distinct citations are resolved per document and 25 flagged ones get a sentence; past that a flag is counted and shown with no label, because a label without its sentence is the one-word chip this service does not ship. Finding no citations is a statement about the text, never about the argument. Quoted language gets its own three answers, and a fourth for what could not be checked, none of them a pass mark. Found means the words are in the text stored here. It does not mean the quote supports what you cited it for, the page you gave is not checked at all, and a quote can be word-perfect and still come from a dissent or from an argument the court went on to reject. Not found means the words are not in the text stored here, and you get the stored passage beside your own, with the number of words the two agree on before they part; that is not a finding that you invented anything, because a different edition or a gap in our own extraction reads exactly the same way. No text stored means this collection holds nothing to look in, which is a hole here and says nothing whatever about your quote. Block quotations are invisible to this, because the indented ones carry no quotation marks in plain text, so the longest quotes in your brief are usually the ones nothing here looked at. Quotes under six words are skipped, at most 40 are compared, stored text is pulled for at most 12 of the cases quoted, and which citation a quote belongs to is a nearest-neighbour guess that ships with the distance it used. Your document is read into memory, checked, and dropped: not stored, not logged, not sent anywhere off this machine. The personal-information scan is a pattern scan and finding nothing is not a clearance: it matches numbers and addresses with the words around them, so it cannot see the protected categories that are names, the name of a minor who is not a party, of an alleged victim of a sex crime, of someone who filed for a protection order, or of a juror, and it cannot see anything written out in words or sitting in an image, a scan, or an attachment. A finding is something to go look at, not a ruling that you broke a rule: a filing made without a lawyer under the federal habeas statutes is exempt from the federal redaction rule outright, and your own court’s local rules and any order in your case govern and are not consulted here. What it finds is shown masked, keeping only what the rule lets you leave in, so the number does not travel inside the report. Under both the federal rule and the Kansas rule, the duty to take these out is yours as the person filing, and the clerk does not do it for you.

• statute

  Exact lookup of one statute section, one Kansas administrative regulation, or, as separate sources, one federal, one Illinois, one New Mexico, one Ohio, one Wisconsin, one Virginia, one Pennsylvania, one Georgia, one North Carolina, one Washington, one Kentucky, one Nevada, one Rhode Island, one Connecticut, one Maryland, one Minnesota, one Alaska, one Louisiana, one Iowa, one South Carolina, one Maine, one North Dakota, one Florida, one Utah, one Missouri, one Idaho, one New Hampshire, one Oregon, one Colorado, one Hawaii, one Arkansas, one South Dakota, one Alabama, one New Jersey, one Michigan, one Mississippi, one California, one New York, one West Virginia, one Wyoming or one Delaware regulation section (New Jersey: agency copies, a small part of the Code; California: Title 15 only; New York: Title 7 only), by citation, returning the text verbatim with its jurisdiction, corpus, heading, path, source link where one exists, its as-of date, and status and last-amended fields where they exist.

  Limit to carry: Four snapshots sit side by side and are never blended, so every row carries its own corpus and as-of date. Of 2,123,652 rows, 1,767,375 (83.2%) are state statute law from the open-us-law 2026.08 release with an as-of date of 14 August 2026; 285,919 (13.5%) are state statute law from a 2019–2021 Justia release, kept only where the newer snapshot lacks the section (Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are Justia-only); 60,470 are the United States Code; and 9,888 are Kansas administrative regulations from the 2022 bound edition. Those regulations are not statutes, they are agency rules made under a statute, and apart from the federal, Illinois, New Mexico, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington, Kentucky, Nevada, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Alaska, Louisiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Maine, North Dakota, Florida, Utah, Missouri, Idaho, New Hampshire, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Arkansas, South Dakota, Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan, Mississippi, California, New York, West Virginia, Wyoming and Delaware regulations (New Jersey’s as agency copies, a small part of the Code; California’s Title 15 only; New York’s Title 7 only) described at the end they are the only regulations here: no other state has any, so outside Kansas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California (Title 15 only), Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey (agency copies, a small part of the Code), New Mexico, New York (Title 7 only), North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and federal a regulation that is not found is a missing corpus and says nothing about the rule. Regulation coverage is stated one jurisdiction at a time and is never blended. On 15 September 2026 all 54 jurisdictions were checked for an open source of their regulations, and four have none: California and New York publish their codes through West (Thomson Reuters), New Jersey through LexisNexis (we serve only New Jersey agencies’ own posted copies, a small part of its Code, and only California’s Title 15 and New York’s Title 7, from pages of the free sites saved in a browser), and the U.S. Virgin Islands stopped publishing its own rules in 1989 and has only a LexisNexis print set since. Those four are a gap we disclose and name the publisher for, not something we can load. Kansas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California (Title 15 only), Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey (agency copies, a small part of the Code), New Mexico, New York (Title 7 only), North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and federal regulations are loaded. The other 11 jurisdictions all have an open publisher, and we have simply not loaded them yet. A rule missing from here is never evidence that the rule does not exist, and never evidence that no free source for it exists. Kansas publishes no later open bound edition, so the regulation text is four years old. A section amended or repealed after its as-of date comes back unchanged; the status field on 2026 rows is the publisher’s, not a finding of this tool, and on the Kansas regulation rows both the status and the last-amended year are worked out by this mirror from the history line the volume prints, with the year drawn from a set that includes the effective year, so a rule that was never amended can still show one. An absent K.A.R. number is not evidence the regulation never existed: 4,404 entries the volume prints as a bare history line with no text, and 826 combined entries naming a range of numbers, are not rows here. The source link is empty for every Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico and Tennessee row and every Justia row, and on every Kansas regulation row it is the volume PDF, one of five files of 8 to 11 MB, rather than a page for the rule. Two citation formats are stored (2026 rows carry no year, Justia rows do), so a miss may be the other format; a Kansas regulation is cited as K.A.R. 1-1-1, with no section sign. A miss is never an absence. Statute text from the 2026 release derives from open-us-law (CC BY 4.0). Some sections stop at a colon, at the point where they announce a fee table, a form, a compact or a list that then does not appear: 481 of the 2,123,652 come back with an ends-at-colon flag and a note saying so. In a hand-read of 25 of them, fixed in advance, 19 were missing the material the section announced, 5 stopped where the publisher’s own page stops, and 1 had its body filed under neighbouring section numbers. The flag catches only text that stops on a colon, so its absence is not evidence that a section’s text is whole. Federal regulations are a separate source and are never mixed into these results: 227,521 sections of the Code of Federal Regulations in 49 titles, taken from the Government Publishing Office’s bulk files, which are not the official legal edition. Each title carries its own amendment date and they differ by years (title 3 reads March 17, 2015; title 1 reads Dec. 29, 2022), so there is no single date for the federal rules here. The check of whether our copy matches the publisher’s was run twice and did not pass either time: in the second run 145 of 150 sampled sections matched exactly, 2 differed only in spacing, 1 differed by a single character that two government sites print differently, and 2 could not be checked; the first run’s 23 mismatches came from the checking tool, not the text. That is a sample, not a guarantee. The link on each federal row opens the government’s current page, which can differ from the text returned. 8,488 federal rows have no text, which in a sample of 50 were all reserved sections, and 141 cover a range of sections, so a lookup for one number inside a range misses it. Illinois regulations are a third separate source and are never mixed into these results either: 54,159 rows of the Illinois Administrative Code in 33 titles, copied on 15 September 2026 from the per-section files the state’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules publishes. Each row’s date is the time that committee’s file listing gives for the file, not the date a rule took effect, and it varies from April 2023 to September 2026. The check of our copy came out mixed: all 150 sampled rows matched the state’s file exactly, but the second, independent check could not look at 25 of the 150, 21 of them because of a fault in the checking tool. 446 of the state’s files did not load at all, so an Illinois section that is not found may simply be one of them. Citations are not unique: appendices, tables and exhibits are stored without their letter, so a lookup for an appendix can return several rows, and an appendix spread over several files comes back in pieces; read the heading on each row. 5,782 Illinois rows have no text and 526 hold images whose content is not in the text, and each of those rows says so. New Mexico regulations are a fourth separate source and are never mixed into these results either: 48,919 rows of the New Mexico Administrative Code in 22 titles, copied on 16 September 2026 from the files the State Records Center and Archives lists, one file per part, split into sections, part rows and a few attachments. Each row’s date is the time that file was uploaded to the state’s file store, not the date a rule took effect, and it varies from May 2025 to August 2026. The check of our copy did not pass: all 200 sampled rows matched the state’s file exactly, but 32 citations sit on more than one row, because two parts were filed twice and a few section numbers are printed twice, and at least 52 sections have no row of their own because their headings are printed in a form the split did not read, so their text is inside the part row or the section before. Each row says whether it is a section, a part or an attachment. The two repealed markers are worked out by this mirror, often disagree, and a missing repeal marker does not mean a rule is in force. 66 New Mexico parts published only as PDF are not here. Ohio regulations are a fifth separate source and are never mixed into these results either: 19,325 rows of the Ohio Administrative Code, one per rule, copied on 17 September 2026 from the chapter pages of codes.ohio.gov, which the state’s Legislative Service Commission publishes and calls official. Our copy is a snapshot from that day, not an official edition, and not current. The site asks automated tools not to crawl it and offers no bulk copy; we fetched each page once, slowly and under our own name, because the state’s duty to publish its rules does not go away with that request. Each row’s date is the rule’s effective date as the state prints it. The check of our copy came out mixed: of 240 sampled rules, 238 matched the state’s rule page exactly, 1 was contained in it, 1 page could not be fetched, and none disagreed, but one listed chapter has no rules at all, and 28 of 150 sampled rules did not match the state’s own PDF, mostly because that PDF runs words together where a line wraps. 948 Ohio rules are published only as PDF, so their rows carry the citation, heading, effective date and a link to the PDF and no rule text, and a keyword search never finds them. Rules with images are missing those images, often equations, and tables come back with their cells run together; each of those rows says so. Wisconsin regulations are a sixth separate source, never mixed into these results either: 22,446 rows of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, one per section plus 194 chapter appendices, copied on 17 and 18 September 2026 from the chapter pages of docs.legis.wisconsin.gov, which the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau publishes and calls the exclusive source of the current code. Our copy is a snapshot from those days, not an official edition, and not current. Each row’s date is the Register issue the bureau prints at the foot of that chapter’s PDF, copied as printed; on three chapters the bureau printed it wrong, and those rows say so. The check of our copy came out mixed: all 270 sampled rows matched the bureau’s own section page exactly, but on 7 chapters the contents list names entries that have no row here; each of those turned out to be a link to a chapter or a subsection rather than a missing section. 1,410 rows had a table or diagram that the bureau publishes only in the PDF; it is not in our text, the row keeps a line saying “See PDF for table” where it stood, and gives the link. Notes printed at the top of a chapter are on no row. Virginia regulations are a seventh separate source: 34,599 entries of the Virginia Administrative Code, copied on 19 September 2026 from the Virginia General Assembly’s website. Virginia prints no edition date, so check the official page before you rely on a rule; a row says so when part of the rule is a picture we don’t carry, or when the state’s page has a known problem. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/virginia Pennsylvania regulations are an eighth separate source: 49,890 entries of the Pennsylvania Code, copied 17 to 19 September 2026 from the state’s official Code website as updated July 4, 2026. It is a copy, not the official edition, so check the official page before you rely on a rule. A row says so when the rule is a picture we don’t carry (the sentencing matrices among them), and a lookup that finds nothing says when a number may sit inside a combined entry. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/pennsylvania Georgia regulations are a ninth separate source: 19,922 entries of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, copied in September 2026 from the Secretary of State’s rules website, which is not the official compilation, so check the official page before you rely on a rule. That website leaves out many rule numbers where one Georgia rule refers to another; an entry says how many the state’s own PDF prints there, and we never fill them in. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/georgia North Carolina regulations are a tenth separate source: 45,965 entries of the North Carolina Administrative Code, copied on 20 September 2026 from the Office of Administrative Hearings’ rules website. Only 19,753 of those entries carry rule text. The other 26,212 are rule numbers the state prints with nothing behind them, most of them repealed, and because keyword search runs over rule text those are nearly invisible to it: finding nothing here never means the rule does not exist, so look the number up instead. Not one of the state’s pages prints a date of any kind, so 20 September 2026 is the day we copied it and nothing more, and we make no claim that this is the official edition. Where the state prints the same number twice we return both copies and never choose one for you. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/north-carolina Washington regulations are an eleventh separate source: 73,474 entries of the Washington Administrative Code, copied on 20 September 2026 from the Legislature’s WAC website. The one thing to know first is that WASHINGTON’S OFFICIAL TEXT IS THE CODE REVISER’S CERTIFIED PDF, NOT THIS WEB TEXT; the state itself calls the web version the working copy, and we copied the web version. 21,873 of those entries are not rules at all: they are rows of the tables each chapter prints of sections formerly codified there, the state’s own record that a number was repealed or moved, and they share the same citation space as live sections. Every one says so on its face. 463 sections carry no text. 45 numbers are printed twice, once effective until a date and once effective from it, and we return both copies and never choose one for you. Nineteen more are printed once and labelled effective on a date still in the future, which means those rules have not taken effect and we hold no earlier version of them; each one says that too. We compared 238 entries against the state’s own certified PDFs and none disagreed, but the same check over 7,916 entries it was not grading found 300 that did, nearly all of them rules laid out as tables, so zero never meant the two agree everywhere. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/washington Kentucky regulations are a twelfth separate source: 11,274 entries of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations, copied on 20 and 21 September 2026 from the Legislative Research Commission’s website. The commission says this web text is unofficial; the official version is the Kentucky Administrative Regulations Service. Only 4,229 of those entries carry rule text. The rest are numbers the state shows as repealed, expired, withdrawn or similar, amendments still being filed, or proposed changes, and they come back with their status and no text. A lookup returns every page the state keeps for a number and never chooses one for you. The 7-year expiration date printed on each rule is shown as printed and is not a statement that the rule is valid. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/kentucky Nevada regulations are a thirteenth separate source: 45,486 entries of the Nevada Administrative Code, copied on 21 September 2026 from the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s website, which prints “Copyright © by State of Nevada All rights reserved.” Only 30,578 of those entries carry rule text. The other 14,908 are numbers the state prints or lists as repealed or replaced, and they come back with that status exactly as printed and no text; a replacement number is shown as printed and never swapped in for you. 22 sections are printed twice with different effective-date labels, and both come back. Each entry carries its chapter’s Revised Date as the state prints it, which is not a statement that the rule is current. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/nevada Rhode Island regulations are a fourteenth separate source: 11,841 entries of the Rhode Island Code of Regulations, copied on 21 September 2026 from the Secretary of State’s website. The state says the official text of each part is its PDF, and every entry links it; what we hold is the state’s web copy, which can differ (in one section we checked, the PDF prints a subsection the web page lacks, and that entry says so). 11,811 entries carry rule text; 30 parts the state lists as inactive come back with that status and no text. 52 sections leave their content to the PDF and say so. Each entry carries its part’s Effective date as printed, which is not a statement that the rule is current. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/rhode-island Connecticut regulations are a fifteenth separate source: 21,885 entries of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, copied on 21 and 22 September 2026 from the Secretary of the State’s website. The state says that website is not an official legal edition; the printed regulations as amended in the Connecticut Law Journal are official. Our check came out mixed: the text matches the web pages, but some tables on the web pages differ from the state’s own PDFs, and entries with tables say so. 17,786 entries carry text; 4,099 are headings with nothing under them. A number inside a printed range returns that range. Each entry carries its subject’s last action date as given, which is not a statement that the rule is current. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/connecticut Maryland regulations are a sixteenth separate source: 29,526 entries of the Code of Maryland Regulations, from the state’s free bulk copy of its March 24, 2026 publication. The state releases that copy 180 days after publication, so it is six months behind the state’s website, and only the printed code is official. 283 entries are status lines such as Repealed, and a number in a chapter the state marks repealed, transferred or reserved returns that chapter’s status. Each regulation comes with its chapter’s Authority and History lines as printed for the whole chapter. Our check came out not clean: one reserved-chapters record was missing, and it has been added. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/maryland Minnesota regulations are a seventeenth separate source: 35,178 entries of Minnesota Rules, copied on September 22, 2026 from the website of the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. The Revisor says that website text is for personal, not commercial, use, so we serve it free and never behind a paid feature. It is not the official text: official Minnesota Rules are the printed edition and the Revisor’s authenticated PDFs. 19,530 entries are numbers the Revisor prints with a status only, such as Repealed or Renumbered, shown as printed, and we never follow a new number named inside one. 81 numbers are printed more than once, and every printing comes back. Our check came out clean. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/minnesota Alaska regulations are an eighteenth separate source: 25,715 numbers of the Alaska Administrative Code, copied in September 2026 from the Alaska Legislature’s BASIS website. It is not the official text: on every section’s cross-reference page the Legislature says this copy is not the official version and is not legal advice. 8,688 numbers are printed with a status only; they come back as printed, labelled, and never followed to another number. Each entry comes back with its heading, notes and text in the order the Legislature’s chapter page prints them. Our check came out clean. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/alaska. Louisiana regulations are a nineteenth separate source: 26,719 numbers of the Louisiana Administrative Code, converted from the Word files the Office of the State Register posted in September 2026. It is not the official text: the publisher calls the Code the state-certified publication, and this is not a certified copy. Each section shows its file’s Last Amended Date as printed. A citation with no Part lists every match rather than guessing one. Our check came out clean. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/louisiana. Iowa regulations are a twentieth separate source: 18,001 numbers of the Iowa Administrative Code, converted from the Word edition the Iowa Legislative Services Agency posts (the 09-16-2026 edition). It is not the official text: the Agency designates the PDF of each chapter as official. Lines printed after a rule come back labelled, never as part of the rule. A number with no agency lists every match rather than guessing one. Our check came out clean. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/iowa South Carolina regulations are a twenty-first separate source: 6,858 regulations of the South Carolina Code of Regulations, converted from the unannotated Word files the South Carolina Legislative Council posts (copied 2026-10-03). It is not the official text: the publisher says only its annotated volumes are. A regulation comes back whole, with our notes in brackets, and a long one comes back in pages. Our check came out clean. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/south-carolina Maine regulations are a twenty-second separate source, shipped in releases: Release 5 shows 1,924 of the 2,294 rule units in the Word files the Maine Secretary of State posts (copied 2026-10-11), and holds the other 370, each by name with its reason, until each is checked. A held chapter comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official text. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/maine North Dakota regulations are a twenty-third separate source, shipped in releases: Release 5 shows 10,966 sections read from the chapter PDF files the North Dakota Legislative Council posts (last changed 2026-10-05, copied 2026-10-12), lists 2,744 repealed, reserved or superseded numbers with no text, and holds 665 units, each by name with its reason, until each is checked. A held section comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official text. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/north-dakota Florida regulations are a twenty-fourth separate source, shipped in releases: Release 5 shows 15,023 rules read from the Word files flrules.org serves (copied 2026-09-22 to 2026-09-24), lists 16,156 repealed, transferred or replaced rules with no text, and holds 2,436 rule numbers, each by name with its reason. A held rule comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official compilation: the Department of State’s electronic publication is official, and the Department asserts copyright over the Code. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/florida Utah regulations are a twenty-fifth separate source, shipped in three releases: Release 3, the last, shows 18,351 sections read from the rule files on the Utah Office of Administrative Rules’ eRules site (copied 2026-10-12; two rules 2026-10-13), and holds 1,376 units in 282 rules, each by name with its reason. A held unit comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official code, and the site’s All Rights Reserved notice is the publisher’s, not ours. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/utah Missouri regulations are a twenty-sixth separate source, shipped in releases: Release 3, the last, shows 4,993 rules read from the Missouri Secretary of State’s chapter PDF files (copied 2026-10-13), and holds 8,225 rules, each by name with its reasons, until each is checked. A held rule comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official code. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/missouri Idaho regulations are a twenty-seventh separate source, shipped in releases: Release 2 shows 8,085 sections read from the chapter PDF files of Idaho’s Office of the Administrative Rules Coordinator (copied 2026-10-13), and holds 358 sections and 14 whole chapters, each by name with its reasons, until each is checked. A held section comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official code. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/idaho New Hampshire regulations are a twenty-eighth separate source, shipped in releases: Release 3, the last, shows 35,087 sections read from the online copy of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules on gc.nh.gov (copied 2026-10-13), and holds 3,171 sections, each by name with its reasons, until each is checked. A held section comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official version: the General Court says the online rules are not the official version under RSA 541-A. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/new-hampshire Oregon regulations are a twenty-ninth separate source, shipped in releases: Release 1 shows 39,613 rules read from the division pages of the Oregon Secretary of State’s Administrative Rules Database (copied 2026-10-19), and holds 1,199 rule blocks, each by name with its reasons, until each is checked. A held rule comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official compilation. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/oregon Colorado regulations are a thirtieth separate source, shipped in releases: Release 2 shows 514 of the 843 current documents of the Code of Colorado Regulations, read from the Word files on the Colorado Secretary of State’s site (copied 2026-10-19), 425 of them from old binary Word files. It holds 329 current documents and lists 256 repealed ones, each by name, with no text. A held document comes back as held, never as missing. It is not the official print. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/colorado Hawaii regulations are a thirty-first separate source, shipped in releases: Release 1 shows only 2,257 sections of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, from 177 of the 985 chapters in force, read from the PDF copies the departments post on their own rules pages (copied 2026-10-19); 465 chapters were not found as files and the rest are held. Each held section is listed by number, with no text, and comes back as held, never as missing. The departments’ copies are not the official rules. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/hawaii Arkansas regulations are a thirty-second separate source, shipped in releases: Release 2 shows 21,359 sections of the Code of Arkansas Rules, read from the official site’s section pages (copied 2026-10-18, 2026-10-19 and 2026-10-20), 7,070 of them from pages copied after Release 1; 1,032 units are held by name, so about 5 per cent of the units are not shown. Each held unit is listed, with no text, and comes back as held, never as missing. GLO’s copy is not the official version. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/arkansas South Dakota regulations are a thirty-third separate source, shipped in releases: Release 1 shows 27,457 sections of the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, read from the Legislative Research Council’s own rule data (copied 2026-10-19); 2,226 units are held by name, most of them one-line transferred or repealed notices. Each held unit is listed, with no text, and comes back as held, never as missing. GLO’s copy is not the official version. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/south-dakota Alabama regulations are a thirty-fourth separate source, shipped in releases: Release 1 shows 17,380 rules of the Alabama Administrative Code, read from the Alabama Legislative Services Agency’s own Administrative Code data (copied 2026-10-19); 1,600 rules are held by name. Each held rule is listed, with no text, and comes back as held, never as missing. The Agency is the official publisher; GLO’s copy is not the official version. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/alabama New Jersey regulations are a thirty-fifth separate source, and a partial one: agency copies, a small part of the Code. Release 1 shows 7,561 sections from copies of New Jersey Administrative Code chapters that New Jersey agencies post on their own websites (some read from Internet Archive captures; copied 2026-10-20); Title 10A and most other titles are not here, 1,502 sections are held by name and 18 files could not be read. Each held section comes back as held, never as missing. The official Code is published by LexisNexis for the Office of Administrative Law, and GLO does not read it; the agencies call their copies courtesy copies. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/new-jersey Michigan regulations are a thirty-sixth separate source. Release 1b shows 18,561 rules of the Michigan Administrative Code as the rule-set files the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules posts on its Administrative Rules System site print them (copied 2026-10-20; 5,660 of them rescinded rules, shown as printed); 3,601 rules are held by name and 1 file could not be fetched. Each held rule comes back as held, never as missing. The text is our machine reading of the publisher’s files, checked by hand on 60 drawn rules. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/michigan Mississippi regulations are a thirty-seventh separate source. Release 1 shows 13,960 rules of the Mississippi Administrative Code as the Part files the Mississippi Secretary of State posts print them (copied 2026-10-20); 8,186 rules are held by name and 419 Part files are held whole. Each held rule comes back as held, never as missing. The text is our machine reading of the publisher’s files, checked by hand on 60 drawn rules. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/mississippi California regulations are a thirty-eighth separate source, Title 15 only (Crime Prevention and Corrections). Release 1 shows 2,416 Title 15 sections as the free public California Code of Regulations site showed its pages, saved one page at a time in a browser (2026-10-20 to 2026-10-21); 96 pages are held by name. It is not the official print, and no other title is here. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/california New York regulations are a thirty-ninth separate source, Title 7 only (Department of Corrections and Community Supervision). Release 1 shows 617 Title 7 sections as the free public NYCRR site, which calls itself an unofficial version, showed its pages, saved one page at a time in a browser (2026-10-21); 152 pages are held by name. Each section shows the page’s own Current through date. It is not the official print, and no other title is here. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/new-york West Virginia regulations are a fortieth separate source. Release 2 shows 11,863 sections of the West Virginia Code of State Rules as the Secretary of State’s site serves each current rule’s Final File in Word form (fetched 2026-10-21); 844 sections are held by name, and 51 files and 163 rules are held whole. Release 1, served until Release 2 replaced it the same day, carried text run on into the next section and page-number lines in 167 sections. The Word file is the Secretary of State’s export; the filed PDF is the record and can differ in form. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/west-virginia Wyoming regulations are a forty-first separate source. Release 2 shows 11,962 sections of the current chapters of the Wyoming Administrative Rules as the Secretary of State’s rules site serves each as a PDF (fetched 2026-10-21); 1,487 sections are held by name, and 73 chapter files are held whole. Release 1, served until Release 2 replaced it the same day, carried page footers and running lines inside some sections. The PDFs are the agencies’ electronic copies, not the official filed copy. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/wyoming Delaware regulations are a forty-second separate source. Release 1 shows 755 whole regulations of the Delaware Administrative Code as the Registrar of Regulations’ web pages showed them (saved 2026-10-21), each checked against its authenticated PDF; 363 regulation pages are held by name. A regulation is shown whole; its sections are not split. It is GLO’s reading of the web pages, not the authenticated PDF. The full numbers are on the Details page: https://glolaw.org/case-search/regulations/delaware

• statute_search

  Keyword (BM25) search over the body text of statute sections and of the Kansas administrative regulations, returning metadata, a rank, and a snippet. Federal, Illinois, New Mexico, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington, Kentucky, Nevada, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Alaska, Louisiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Maine, North Dakota, Florida, Utah, Missouri, Idaho, New Hampshire, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Arkansas, South Dakota, Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan, Mississippi, California, New York, West Virginia, Wyoming and Delaware regulations (New Jersey’s as agency copies, a small part of the Code; California’s Title 15 only; New York’s Title 7 only) are each searched separately and never appear in the same list.

  Limit to carry: Without a jurisdiction it returns the wrong state’s law almost every time. Measured, not estimated: across 6,852 benchmark housing-law questions run unconfined, the top-ranked section came from a state other than the asker’s in 97.7% of them. The query is also not run as typed: common words are dropped, at most 40 words survive, and those are matched any-of, so a top hit can share a single word with the question and answer nothing. The heading is not searched. Statutes and Kansas regulations are searched together, so a Kansas result may be a statute or an agency regulation made under one; the corpus field on the row says which, and they are not the same thing. Results can mix all four vintages in one list; read the corpus and as-of date on every row. Same currency limits as the statute tool, and the same ends-at-colon flag: a result whose stored text stops at a colon carries the flag and its note, and the absence of the flag is not evidence that a section’s text is whole. Federal regulation search is its own list, federal only, and carries every federal limit given on the statute tool, including a copy check that did not pass either time it was run. Illinois regulation search is also its own list, Illinois only, and carries every Illinois limit given on the statute tool, including a mixed copy check and 446 state files that are not here at all. New Mexico regulation search is also its own list, New Mexico only, and carries every New Mexico limit given on the statute tool, including a copy check that did not pass, citations that sit on more than one row, and sections with no row of their own. Ohio regulation search is also its own list, Ohio only, and carries every Ohio limit given on the statute tool, including a mixed copy check and 948 rules published only as PDF that no keyword can reach. Wisconsin regulation search is also its own list, Wisconsin only, and carries every Wisconsin limit given on the statute tool, including a mixed copy check and tables published only in the PDF that no keyword can reach. Virginia regulation search is also its own list, Virginia only, with the same limits as the Virginia lookup. Pennsylvania regulation search is its own list too, Pennsylvania only. Georgia regulation search is its own list as well, Georgia only. North Carolina regulation search is its own list, North Carolina only, and it reaches rule text alone: the 26,212 North Carolina entries the state prints with no text cannot be found by any keyword, so an empty result there is never evidence that a rule does not exist. Washington regulation search is its own list, Washington only, and it also reaches rule text alone: the 21,873 table entries and the 463 sections with no text cannot be found by any keyword, and it searches the web text, not the certified PDF that is Washington’s official version. Kentucky regulation search is its own list, Kentucky only, and reaches only the 4,229 entries that carry text, so a repealed, expired or proposed entry can never turn up there and finding nothing is never evidence that a rule does not exist. Nevada regulation search is its own list, Nevada only, and reaches only the 30,578 entries that carry text, so a repealed or replaced number can never turn up there. Rhode Island regulation search is its own list, Rhode Island only, and reaches only the 11,811 sections that carry text; a word with a footnote mark attached to it in the source will not match the plain word. Connecticut regulation search is its own list, Connecticut only, and reaches only the 17,786 entries that carry text. Maryland regulation search is its own list, Maryland only, and reaches only the 29,240 entries that carry text. Minnesota regulation search is its own list, Minnesota only, and reaches only the 15,608 rules that carry text. Alaska regulation search is its own list, Alaska only, and reaches only the 16,997 sections that carry text. Louisiana regulation search is its own list, Louisiana only, and reaches only the 26,495 sections that carry text. Iowa regulation search is its own list, Iowa only, and reaches only the 16,840 rules that carry text, each rule's heading line and body. South Carolina regulation search is its own pair of lists, South Carolina only: regulations matched on their heading and text, and note units matched on their own. Maine regulation search is its own list, Maine only, and reaches only the units Release 5 shows. North Dakota regulation search is its own list, North Dakota only, and reaches only the sections Release 5 shows. Florida regulation search is its own list, Florida only, and reaches only the rules Release 5 shows. Utah regulation search is its own list, Utah only, and reaches only the sections Release 3 shows. Missouri regulation search is its own list, Missouri only, and reaches only the rules Missouri’s Release 3 shows. Idaho regulation search is its own list, Idaho only, and reaches only the sections Idaho’s Release 2 shows. New Hampshire regulation search is its own list, New Hampshire only, and reaches only the sections New Hampshire’s Release 3 shows. Oregon regulation search is its own list, Oregon only, and reaches only the rules Oregon’s Release 1 shows. Colorado regulation search is its own list, Colorado only, and reaches only the 514 documents Colorado’s Releases 1 and 2 show. Hawaii regulation search is its own list, Hawaii only, and reaches only the 2,257 sections Hawaii’s Release 1 shows. Arkansas regulation search is its own list, Arkansas only, and reaches only the 21,359 sections Arkansas’s Releases 1 and 2 show. South Dakota regulation search is its own list, South Dakota only, and reaches only the 27,457 sections South Dakota’s Release 1 shows. Alabama regulation search is its own list, Alabama only, and reaches only the 17,380 rules Alabama’s Release 1 shows. New Jersey regulation search is its own list, New Jersey only, and reaches only the 7,561 sections New Jersey’s Release 1 shows (agency copies, a small part of the Code). Michigan regulation search is its own list, Michigan only, and reaches only the 18,561 rules Michigan’s Release 1b shows. Mississippi regulation search is its own list, Mississippi only, and reaches only the 13,960 rules Mississippi’s Release 1 shows. California regulation search is its own list, California Title 15 only, and reaches only the 2,416 sections California’s Release 1 shows. New York regulation search is its own list, New York Title 7 only, and reaches only the 617 sections New York’s Release 1 shows. West Virginia regulation search is its own list, West Virginia only, and reaches only the 11,863 sections West Virginia’s Release 2 shows. Wyoming regulation search is its own list, Wyoming only, and reaches only the 11,962 sections Wyoming’s Release 2 shows. Delaware regulation search is its own list, Delaware only, and reaches only the 755 whole regulations Delaware’s Release 1 shows.

• statute_citing

  Given a section of the federal code, lists the opinions in the mirror whose text cites it, most recently filed first, with any explanatory parenthetical the court wrote at that citation relayed word for word.

  Limit to carry: This is not Shepardizing, and an empty list is not a finding. An entry means an opinion’s text names the section, never that the court applied, upheld, or struck it down. Getting nothing back is the ordinary outcome, not the rare one: only 25,093 of the 60,444 federal sections here, about 41.5%, have any citing opinion that could be extracted, so an empty list means the extraction missed it rather than that no case cites the statute. Six known extraction gaps sit under every number, including citations written without a section symbol, dropped subsections, only the first section of a list surviving, and ranges never matching. Federal code only: there are no statute-citation links for state law anywhere in this collection, so a state citation returns a visible error instead of an empty list. The order is by date and nothing else, so the first result is not the best one. Where a section is not in the current federal snapshot it is reported as not present and shown exactly as it was written, never swapped for a successor.

• corrections_policy

  Looks up one internal policy of a state department of corrections, or of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, by its number, or searches one department’s policies by keyword, returning the policy as the department’s file prints it: its number, its title, the dates the file prints, and its text, with the date GLO read it.

  Limit to carry: Not law: a department’s internal policy is not a statute, not a regulation and not a court rule, and nothing here says what follows from following or breaking one. For Kentucky GLO makes no claim either way, because its files print a Kentucky Administrative Regulation number. A department can change its policies without notice, and policies it does not post are not here, so a policy that is not found is never evidence that the department has none. Coverage is one department at a time and never blended: the corrections-policies page lists the departments served, and each one’s own page gives how many of its policies are served and why each held one is held. A held policy comes back as held, by name, never as missing. Check with the department for the current version.

When a route is degraded it says so out loud. Concept search depends on a service that can be down, and when it is, the call comes back as a visible error carrying its coverage note. It never comes back as an empty result set, because an empty result set reads like “there is nothing on this” and that would be a lie. If your AI reports no results at a moment when the route was actually unavailable, that is your client swallowing the error, not the corpus answering.

The same rule runs through everything here. A citation that does not resolve is reported as not present in this mirror, shown exactly as it was written, never quietly swapped for something that does resolve. Counts that are bounded samples are labelled as floors. The figures on this page and on the limitations page come from full scans rather than estimates, and where a number could only be measured as a lower bound it is published as one.

There is a second face that speaks MCP over stdio. It is a thin adapter that talks to a search service on the same machine as the corpus: it does not carry the collection with it and does not dial out, so it is only useful if you are running the whole stack yourself. Most people want the address at the top of this page instead.

The adapter holds the internal service secret and forwards it itself. The AI client never sees the database, the SQL, or the secret, and no tool has a write path.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "glolaw-casesearch": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["<path-to>/casesearch-mcp/index.mjs"],
      "env": {
        "CASESEARCH_BASE": "http://127.0.0.1:8787",
        "CASESEARCH_PROXY_SECRET_FILE": "<path-to>/casesearch_proxy_secret.txt"
      }
    }
  }
}