Last August, I shared my experience using Claude.ai to outline case briefs (pretty good!).
Today, I took the current (free) version of Claude.ai for a spin to outline a recent unanimous Michigan Supreme Court opinion.
tl;dr: Claude.ai did a really good job. My only quibble is that it left out the role of one of the three plaintiffs—a role that was addressed in the opinion’s footnote 1. (This made its first-try response to prompt 2.1 Relationship or status of parties (include parties’ full names) incomplete.)
Here is the court’s .pdf opinion. I deleted the court’s three-page syllabus.
I gave Claude.ai this prompt with the 18-page opinion:
Draft an opinion outline of the attached court opinion which follows this format and uses these labels.
1.0 Case name(s):
1.1 Court name:
1.2 Docket (or file) number(s):
1.3 Names of Court of Appeals judges (if any):
1.4 Name of Court of Claims judge (if any):
1.5 Name(s) of Circuit Court judge and county (if any):
1.6 Argument (argued) date (if any):
1.7 Decision date:2.0 Statement of facts:
2.1 Relationship or status of parties (include parties’ full names):
2.2 Legally relevant facts (facts tending to prove or disprove an issue before the court):
2.3 Procedurally significant facts (set out the (a) cause of action, (b) the requested relief, and (c) any raised defenses):
2.4 Acronym(s) defined:3.0 Procedural history (the case disposition in the lower courts):
3.1 The lower court(s) decisions:
3.2 Any awarded damages:
3.3 Who appealed and why:4.0 Issues
4.1 Substantive issue(s)
4.1.1 The disputed point(s) of law:
4.1.2 The key case facts related to the disputed point(s) of law (legally relevant facts):4.2 Procedural issue(s)
4.2.1 What is the appealing party claiming that the lower court(s) did wrong:5.0 Judgment: (The court’s final decision about the parties’ rights, and the court’s response to a party’s request for relief. The appellate court will generally either affirm, reverse, or reverse with instructions.)
6.0 Holding: (The statement of law that the court’s answer to the issue.)
6.1 Opinion author:
6.2 Any case law overruled (with citation(s)):
6.3 Any provision of law declared constitutional or unconstitutional:
6.4 Any newly announced legal standard(s):
6.5 List the sentiment for the opinion.
6.6 List the emotion for the opinion.
6.7 List the tone for the opinion.
6.8 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear.7.0 Rule of law or applied legal principle: (The rule(s) of law that the court applied to determine the parties’ substantive rights. The rule(s) of law could be based on constitution, statute, case law, regulation, or court rule. The rule(s) or legal principle(s) may be expressly stated in the opinion or it may be implied.)
8.0 Reasoning:
8.1 Explain the way the court applied the rules/legal principles to the particular facts to reach its decision. This includes syllogistic application of rules and policy arguments the court used to justify its holding (why the decision was socially
desirable).
8.2 List the opinion’s headings and subheadings in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
8.3 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts in the majority opinion, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear.9.0 Non-majority opinion(s)
9.1 Name of each concurring (only) judge. Explain their reason(s) for writing separate from the majority opinion:
9.1.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each concurring (only) opinion in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
9.1.2 List the sentiment for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
9.1.3 List the emotion for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
9.1.4 List the tone for each concurring (only) judge’s opinion.
9.1.5 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts in each concurring opinion, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear.9.2 Name of each dissenting (only) judge. Explain their reason(s) for refusing to join in the majority opinion:
9.2.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each dissenting (only) opinion in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
9.2.2 List the sentiment for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
9.2.3 List the emotion for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
9.2.4 List the tone for each dissenting (only) judge’s opinion.
9.2.5 Quote the sentences the judge used to express their dissent (such as “I respectfully dissent” or “I dissent”).
9.2.6 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts in each dissenting opinion, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear.9.3 Name each judge who wrote an opinion that both concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. Explain the reason(s) for it:
9.3.1 List the headings and subheadings used in each opinion that both concurred in part and dissented in part in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
9.3.2 List the sentiment for each opinion that both concurred and dissented.
9.3.3 List the emotion for each opinion that both concurred and dissented.
9.3.4 List the tone for each opinion that both concurred and dissented.
9.3.5 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts in each opinion that both concurred and dissented, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear.10.0 Nonparticipating jurists
10.1 Name of each judge who did not participate in the decision and outline their reason(s) why:11.0 Additional comments or impressions: (Is the reasoning sound and, if so, how? Is the reasoning contradictory and, if so, how? What could be the decision’s political, economic, or social effects, if any?)
Now bold the labels.
And, on the first attempt, Claude.ai responded:
1.0 Case name(s): Richard Miller, Brenda Miller, and Brent Whitman v. Department of Corrections
1.1 Court name: Michigan Supreme Court
1.2 Docket (or file) number(s): No. 164862
1.3 Names of Court of Appeals judges (if any): N/A
1.4 Name of Court of Claims judge (if any): N/A
1.5 Name(s) of Circuit Court judge and county (if any): N/A
1.6 Argument (argued) date (if any): N/A
1.7 Decision date: May 10, 2024
2.0 Statement of facts:
2.1 Relationship or status of parties (include parties’ full names): Richard Miller, Brenda Miller, and Brent Whitman were employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Richard Miller and Brent Whitman were close friends with Cedric Griffey, another MDOC employee whose wife, Lisa Griffey, had filed a complaint against MDOC alleging racial discrimination and harassment.
2.2 Legally relevant facts (facts tending to prove or disprove an issue before the court):
- Lisa Griffey, an MDOC employee, alleged that she experienced a racially hostile work environment and filed a complaint against MDOC.
- After Lisa Griffey’s complaint, her husband Cedric Griffey, who was a deputy warden at MDOC, was involved in several internal MDOC investigations.
- Richard Miller and Brent Whitman were close friends with Cedric Griffey, and their relationship was well-known within MDOC.
- Richard Miller and Brent Whitman were ultimately fired by MDOC.
- Miller and Whitman alleged that they were fired in retaliation against the Griffeys for Lisa Griffey’s protected activity of filing a complaint against MDOC.
2.3 Procedurally significant facts (set out the (a) cause of action, (b) the requested relief, and (c) any raised defenses): (a) Cause of action: Miller and Whitman filed a lawsuit alleging that MDOC violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) by firing them in retaliation against the Griffeys. (b) Requested relief: Unspecified. (c) Raised defenses: MDOC argued that Miller and Whitman failed to state a claim under the ELCRA because they did not personally engage in any protected conduct.
2.4 Acronym(s) defined: ELCRA: Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act MDOC: Michigan Department of Corrections
3.0 Procedural history (the case disposition in the lower courts):
3.1 The lower court(s) decisions: The Genesee Circuit Court denied MDOC’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), allowing Miller and Whitman’s claim to proceed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the ELCRA did not authorize Miller and Whitman’s “third-party retaliation” claims.
3.2 Any awarded damages: N/A
3.3 Who appealed and why: Miller and Whitman sought leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the ELCRA did not allow for their third-party retaliation claims.
4.0 Issues:
4.1 Substantive issue(s):
4.1.1 The disputed point(s) of law: Whether the ELCRA establishes a right to recover for third-party retaliation claims, where an individual is subjected to retaliation as an indirect attack against someone else who engaged in protected activity.
4.1.2 The key case facts related to the disputed point(s) of law (legally relevant facts):
- Miller and Whitman were close friends with Cedric Griffey, whose wife Lisa Griffey had filed a complaint against MDOC.
- Miller and Whitman alleged that they were fired by MDOC in retaliation against the Griffeys for Lisa Griffey’s protected activity of filing a complaint.
4.2 Procedural issue(s):
4.2.1 What is the appealing party claiming that the lower court(s) did wrong: Miller and Whitman claimed that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the ELCRA did not authorize their third-party retaliation claims.
5.0 Judgment: The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Genesee Circuit Court for further proceedings.
6.0 Holding:
6.1 Opinion author: Justice Megan K. Cavanagh
6.2 Any case law overruled (with citation(s)): None
6.3 Any provision of law declared constitutional or unconstitutional: None
6.4 Any newly announced legal standard(s): None
6.5 List the sentiment for the opinion: Affirmative, resolving a legal ambiguity
6.6 List the emotion for the opinion: Objective, analytical
6.7 List the tone for the opinion: Formal, authoritative
6.8 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear. None
7.0 Rule of law or applied legal principle: The court applied MCL 37.2701(a) of the ELCRA, which prohibits retaliation against a person because the person has opposed a violation of the ELCRA or participated in an investigation or proceeding under the ELCRA. The court held that this provision permits third-party or associational retaliation claims, where an individual is subjected to retaliation as an indirect attack against someone else who engaged in protected activity.
8.0 Reasoning:
8.1 Explain the way the court applied the rules/legal principles to the particular facts to reach its decision. This includes syllogistic application of rules and policy arguments the court used to justify its holding (why the decision was socially desirable). The court reasoned that MCL 37.2701(a) prohibits retaliation against “a person” without specifying that the person must be the plaintiff or the individual who engaged in the protected activity. The court found that Miller and Whitman’s allegations that they were fired in retaliation against Cedric Griffey for his wife’s protected activity stated a claim under MCL 37.2701(a).
The court further reasoned that MCL 37.2801 allows “a person alleging a violation of [the ELCRA]” to bring a civil action for damages caused by the violation, without limiting recovery to the person who was directly retaliated against. Therefore, Miller and Whitman could seek damages for the alleged violation of MCL 37.2701(a) by MDOC firing them in retaliation against Cedric Griffey.
The court rejected the Court of Appeals’ reasoning that MCL 37.2701(f) governed third-party retaliation claims and limited the application of MCL 37.2701(a). The court concluded that MCL 37.2701(f) did not create a conflict with MCL 37.2701(a) and that multiple subsections could apply to the same conduct.
8.2 List the opinion’s headings and subheadings in text. Use sentence-case capitalization.
- Facts and procedural history
- Standard of review
- Analysis
- Conclusion
8.3 Note any image(s), figure(s), table(s), or charts in the majority opinion, and (a) repeat any text-based caption, and (b) describe each image, figure, table, or chart as they appear. None
9.0 Non-majority opinion(s): None
10.0 Nonparticipating jurists: None mentioned
11.0 Additional comments or impressions: The court’s reasoning appears sound and consistent with the statutory language of the ELCRA. By allowing third-party retaliation claims under MCL 37.2701(a), the court recognizes that retaliation can take various forms and have ripple effects beyond the individual who engaged in protected activity. This decision promotes the policy goals of the ELCRA by providing a deterrent against retaliatory conduct and ensuring that individuals are not discouraged from exercising their rights under the act
Of course, this was a “simple” opinion in the sense that there were no concurring or dissenting opinions to juggle.
The results are impressive but—in the future—I will be paying closer attention to whether or how well this AI tool processes footnotes.
I asked Claude.ai follow-up questions since its response to prompt part “2.1 Relationship or status of parties (include parties’ full names)” was incomplete and its follow-responses were correct.
