CiteTrak: The Best-of-Breed Algorithm That Streamlines The Retrieval Task, Personalizes The Analysis Task & Individualizes The Validation Task

CiteTrak is the brand name we use for the first mover, best-of-breed algorithm that makes the magic happen the instant you click Search. We released CiteTrak v.1 on May 1, 2008 (after nearly 10 years in business). Interestly, with the recent release of WestlawNext, Canadian media conglomerate Thomson Reuter’s seems to be playing catch up as they attempt to drag their market of large users away from the tedium of mass customized 19th century book browsing – on the page and screen – toward the efficiency of individualized 21st century compusearching.

WestlawNext rents for up to $3,400 an hour without providing the detailed insight and functionality listed below. CiteTrak is guaranteed to free your mind, schedule and wallet, while dramatically changing how you think about legal research.

At The Point Of ‘Search’

Show me the cases citing my Code (constitutional principle, statute, rule, regulation) and/or Concept. Show the opinions citing my Code or Concept for my reason. Examples:

  1. “fifth amendment” and “ex-post facto” (asks for cases that include at least one reference to each phrase)
  2. 42 and 1983 and “excessive force” (asks for cases that include the title number, section number and civil rights related concept)
  3. 3. “100 F.2d 200” and 42 and 1983 and “excessive force” (asks for cases citing my case, my statute and my concept)

In The Results: Citing References & Frequency Generally

For each case in the results and without having to re-execute my search, tell me and link me separately to:

  • the number of general citing references nationally
  • the number of general citing references for the U.S. Supreme Court
  • the number of general citing references for my Federal circuit
  • the number of general citing references for my Federal district
  • the number of general citing references, if any, for my Federal bankruptcy court
  • the number of general citing references, if any, for my state
  • the number of general citing references, if any, for any of the 315 jurisdictions I specify
  • display these results in a sortable Most Cited Column so that at any time, without re-executing my Search, I can assess citation frequency of any opinion in my result set in relation to the others

In The Results: Citing References & Frequency By Point Of Law

  • the subset of general citing references nationally that also expressly mention my search terms
  • the subset of general citing references for the U.S. Supreme Court that also expressly mention my search terms
  • the subset of general citing references for my Federal circuit that also expressly mention my search terms
  • the subset of general citing references for my Federal district that also expressly mention my search terms
  • the subset of general citing references, if any, for my Federal bankruptcy court
  • the subset of general citing references, if any, for my state
  • the subset of general citing references, if any, for any of the 315 jurisdictions I specify
  • display these results in a sortable Most Cited Column so that at any time, without re-executing my Search, I can assess citation frequency of any opinion in my result set in relation to the others

In The Results: Assign Relevance Ranking Based On Weight of Authority

Assign a Relevance Ranking (in the form of a percentage sign) of each case in relation to all others in the result set upon consideration of the following criteria:

  1. Numerosity of terms
  2. Proximity: physical location of terms in relation to each other (negating need for so-called ‘within connectors’ such as w/10 or w/s or w/p that lead to inherently arbitrary results
  3. Density: ratio of keywords to total number of words in the opinion
  4. Diversity: (5x Term A + 5x Term B > 9x Term A + 1x Term B) lots of both terms is better than only one occurrence of one term and lots of another.

Place these results in a separate column that can be sorted and re-sorted so that I have the at-a-glance capability of simultaneously assessing Most Relevant and Most Cited on the same screen without re-executing my Search.

In The Results: Customize A “Smart Headnote” And The Most Relevant Paragraph

Using the same criteria, for each case matching our search terms, extract the Most Relevant Paragraph and pin it in a separate column under the hyperlinked caption to each case. Make this column sortable by party so that without re-executing my search I can easily surface any unknown opinions involving the same parties in the same case or controversy.

In The Results: Solve For ‘Most Recent” and Seminal

Display Decision Date in the results in a separate, sortable column so that at any time, without re-executing my search, I can sort and re-sort my result set based on Most Recent and/or the seminal case to match my term(s).

Opinion Navigation, Analysis & Management

  • Build in a utility so I can jump to any occurrence of any term
  • Also provide the ability to jump to any occurrence of any part of any search term
  • Build in a utility the provides for automatic dual column saving and/or printing in DOC/RTF/PDF
  • Carry my Result Set forward and display in a separate frame so I never have to return to my Result Set and can simply jump to the Next/Previous hit or any hit in my Result Set.
  • Highlight and Bold any part of any search term(s)
  • Build in a utility that allows me to leap to the Most Relevant Paragraph
  • Provide a utility that allows me to jump to any instance of any non-search term
  • Ensure that all (or any part of) opinion text saveable, copyable, pastable, emailable and compatible with common office programs.

Comments are closed.