This quick guide will help you understand how to approach your online research regarding state law decisions. The case-finding tools on Trellis give you a variety of methods to find relevant cases. On the Home Page, you will find a search bar where you can search over 3,000,000 records. Also on the Home Page, under “Browse Trellis by Topic” you have the option to search by Dockets, Judges, Counties, or Parties.
For example, an attorney who is investigating prior state law decisions regarding “Terminating Sanctions” can enter this phrase into the search bar and receive relevant cases. By selecting one of the “Filter Search” options, results can be further narrowed by county, judge, or by a period of time. If the judge in question has already seen a similar case, the ruling will be immediately available.
Having access to this information is invaluable, but Trellis doesn’t just give you access to relevant cases, it makes them actually accessible. By simply searching for keywords, you can discover information that is both pertinent and hyper-specific. Sit back, and let the program weed through millions of results to find exactly what you are looking for.
Legal research is powerful. It’s the lifeblood of a case. It can shape an argument, improve a motion, and win credibility with clients.
Sadly, the best option is often a haphazard company-wide email desperately requesting information on a judge. At best you get kinda-helpful anecdotal info from a colleague who appeared before your judge too many years ago.
Finding accurate, organized, helpful information, quickly, is a surefire way to unlock potential. That’s what makes a powerful search engine like Google valuable. Providing a user with accurate relevant content can make or break their experience.
To those very lawyers, looking for organized, accurate, helpful information on a moment’s notice, Trellis provides that value. In fact, no legal research search engine comes close, when it comes to local level information.
Having access to how judges ruled on a motion and how they shaped their argument is game-changing. It’s thrilling to see our customers take a look at the value we provide and think to themselves, it’s about time.
The internet has trained us to search for things. Whether it be food, news, reservations — or your opposing counsel win-streak — we are constantly searching. Search is so powerful that it guesses what you are about to type just with the few letters you entered. The data from other people searching informs what you will likely be looking for.
Let’s say it’s early February. You’re in the United States, and you start typing “s-u-p…” into Google. It’s more likely that you’re looking for SuperBowl content than ‘Superior Court of Los Angeles’. In contrast, if you’d logged previous searches for ‘subpoenas’ or other legal terms, there’s an increased likelihood that you’re be looking for ‘Superior Court of Los Angeles’.
Context matters and a user’s search context is key to a rich experience.
Trellis analyzes the contents of tentative rulings — motion, parties, judges, departments, case-type — to find the information you’re looking for. We know you are looking for great insights on your local judges. We know that with existing solutions you would be searching for information on your judge in the abstract rather than being able to see how they actually rule on their state cases.
We deliver the context. All you have to do is search.
How did you write your last motion to compel arbitration? Trellis analyzed tentative rulings from judges across California and we found that judges prefer this outline when writing the motion….
II. Statement of Facts
III. Legal Analysis
a. Applicability of FAA
b. Agreement to Arbitrate
c. Agreement Not Unconscionable
1. NOT Procedurally Unconscionable
2. NOT Substantive Unconscionable
d. Class Arbitration
f. Matter should be stayed
Our CEO, Nicole Clark, used Trellis to write better motions while she was an attorney at Newmeyer & Dillion. She won every motion for two years.
Trellis makes over a decade of California Superior Court records searchable for the first time. Instead of researching a matter in the abstract, see what your judge actually thinks.