Test whether the case you are building on still stands
Three turns and a check. Keep this open next to your chat: each step is the thing to paste next, with what you typed already carried across. Nothing is sent from here, and nothing on this page is a transcript. The conversation stays where you are having it.
The case, statute, or rule you want to build on, cited as you have it.
The exact proposition you are citing it for, in one or two sentences.
The forum, which decides what binds and what merely persuades.
Any signal, later case, or amendment you have already seen.
The databases and books you have, so the searches are ones you can run.
Watch for, the whole way through
This prompt produces a checklist, not a status. Nothing here tells you whether the authority is still good law, and no output from a model can. Run the citator.
The model will invent later cases, amendments, and subsequent history that sound plausible. Treat every name it produces as fiction until you have pulled it.
A citator flag is about a case, and your argument is about a passage. A green signal on an opinion says nothing about whether the sentence you are quoting survived.
Currency and weight are different questions. An authority that is perfectly good law may still be a trial court decision in a forum that binds nobody.
Courts sanction lawyers for filings that rely on overruled authority. The pull is yours, and it cannot be delegated to a summary.