Research methodology

Methodology and evidence rules

The research is designed to distinguish court findings from allegations, and source-backed repetition from mere similarity.

Evidence layers

Court findings are recorded only when tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation. Party statements and motions are labelled as party material. Public statements are separately indexed. Secondary sources, including former-counsel commentary, are labelled as such and are not promoted to court findings without primary-source support. Research classifications organise evidence but are not presented as court conclusions.

Same-action de-duplication

When a state action is removed to federal court, both docket records may be retained for auditability but grouped as one originating action for lawsuit counts. Transfers are handled similarly where appropriate.

Related and repeated litigation

Dispute groups are analytical navigation aids. A case is marked as a confirmed refiling or identical-claims matter only when a sufficiently strong source supports that relationship. Otherwise the relationship remains qualified, such as “same-day parallel filing” or “repeated-party relationship.”

Chronology

Timeline research records sequence, not causation. A ruling followed by a new filing or public reaction is not described as causing the later conduct unless a source supports that conclusion.

Video statements

User-supplied timestamped quotations retain their verification status. Where only a video title could be independently confirmed, it is labelled a title-level statement rather than a transcript excerpt.

Docket/index research

DocketBird and similar index services may expose otherwise hard-to-find docket entries or historical exhibits. Each indexed record is classified by record type and verification status. Party filings, tentative rulings and sanctions-related leads remain qualified until a court order or independently verified final record supports a stronger conclusion.

Uncertainty

Unknown fields remain unknown. Research notes identify gaps such as inaccessible state-court PDFs, unresolved final dispositions or unverified video publication dates.