---
name: law-library-comparison
description: Compare statutes, rules, or legal theories across US jurisdictions while separating genuine legal variation from corpus and retrieval gaps.
---

# Comparative Legal Research

This plan can be read and followed in an ordinary chat window. Use the GET API described at https://implausible.enterprises/projects/law-library/for-llms.txt.

Hold the legal question and fact pattern constant. Define the comparison dimensions before searching: governing text, elements, definitions, period/trigger, exceptions, choice of law, remedies, procedural differences, effective date, and practical consequence.

Search each jurisdiction separately using `jurisdiction=state:XX` or `federal`. Retrieve full statutes/rules and the material cases interpreting them. Absence of a hit is not evidence that no authority exists. Record it as a corpus/retrieval gap until checked against an official source.

For statute comparison, compare operative language, incorporated definitions, exceptions, status, and effective date. For forum or jurisdiction comparison, also examine choice of law, personal/subject-matter jurisdiction, removal, venue, limitations, and binding appellate authority; recommend a forum only when the deciding factors are supported by retrieved authority.

Return a common-dimensions table, 1–3 controlling authorities behind the recommendation or principal contrast, outliers, open questions, corpus gaps, and a concise bottom line. Do not confuse different citation conventions or incomplete source coverage with substantive variation.