Comparable Cases

What this tool does

5,247 real PACER cases, searchable by jurisdiction, injury, and settlement range.

Every case shown has a clickable docket link. The tool refuses to display any case it cannot verify with a primary source.

How Comparable Cases works

CourtListener PACER API query + filter by user inputs + Claude-generated factual summaries that explicitly cite the docket entries used.

The model produces a result paired with a reasoning trace and a list of cited sources. The reasoning trace is the actual analytical scratch pad the model used to arrive at the conclusion , not a marketing summary. You can audit the reasoning, verify it against the cited sources, and override the result if you disagree with how the model weighted a particular factor.

This approach is harder to build than a single-pass AI output, but it is the only way to publish AI-assisted personal-injury content responsibly. Personal-injury claims are a Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) topic under Google's quality framework. Outputs that cannot be audited or verified fail the EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) standard and should not be relied on.

Inputs the tool expects

• Injury type
• State or federal jurisdiction
• Settlement range filter
• Year filter

What the output looks like

List of comparable cases with name, court, year, settlement amount, injury type, and a 3-sentence factual summary. Click any case for the full PACER docket link.

Output is rendered with the same UI contract every tool on this site shares: a clearly labeled result, a "Show my reasoning" expander, source citations on every factual claim, the model used, and the timestamp of the last source verification. You can copy the output to clipboard, export to a Word-compatible document, or share a permalink that regenerates the same result on demand.

Sources cited by the tool

• CourtListener PACER API (Free Law Project)
• Federal district court docket records

Sources are refreshed daily through a hash-compare verification pipeline. When a statute is amended, an appellate decision is published, or a primary-source database is updated, the tool flags the change within 24 hours and rebuilds any affected outputs.

Why use Comparable Cases instead of a search engine?

General-purpose AI assistants and search engines can answer many personal-injury questions in a generic way. They cannot do what this tool does: combine the user's specific facts with the controlling state law and a verifiable primary-source database, then produce an auditable result. The reasoning trace is the difference: with a general AI assistant, you get an answer; with Comparable Cases, you get an answer plus a record of why.

For a $5,000 fender-bender case, that distinction may not matter much. For a $500,000 catastrophic-injury case, it matters enormously. The tools on this site are built for the second kind of case, not the first.

The limits of Comparable Cases

Every tool on this site has known limits, and Comparable Cases is no exception. The tool produces informational outputs based on the inputs you provide and the primary sources we have indexed. It does not see the facts an attorney would learn from interviewing you, reviewing your medical records, deposing the at-fault driver, or evaluating the strength of available witnesses. A tool that does not see those facts cannot replace an attorney who does.

The tool also cannot weigh the strategic value of the specific judge, opposing counsel, or local court culture that an experienced attorney handles intuitively. Comparable Cases produces a defensible baseline that is more accurate than guessing and more transparent than a defense-side analytics product. It is a starting point for a conversation with counsel, not the final word on your case.

Finally, the tool reflects the state of the primary-source database at the time of the last verification run. Statutes amend, appellate decisions reshape doctrine, and carrier behavior shifts in response to regulatory action. Comparable Cases updates its source data daily through the hash-compare freshness pipeline, but there is always a gap between a real-world change and the tool reflecting it. Verify time-sensitive output against the cited primary source before acting on it.

How Comparable Cases fits into the broader site

Comparable Cases is one of 12 AI-assisted tools on this site, each designed to address a specific decision a personal-injury plaintiff faces. The tools share a common contract: explainable result, reasoning trace, source citations, model and timestamp disclosed. They also share a common philosophy: AI for analytical reasoning, deterministic algorithms for monetary calculations, primary-source data for facts. The combination is more accurate than any single layer and more transparent than the defense-side analytics products that carriers have used for two decades.

Plaintiffs typically use Comparable Cases in combination with other site tools depending on case phase. Early in a case, the SOL Countdown and Case Value AI are the most useful , they establish the filing deadline and a defensible settlement range. Mid-case, the Demand Letter Generator and Insurance Playbook help structure the negotiation. Late-case, the Lawyer Cost Calculator and Settlement Tracker help evaluate offers and contribute anonymized data to help future plaintiffs. The tools compose; they do not replace each other.

Related tools

Frequently asked questions

Is Comparable Cases free to use?

Yes. All 12 tools on this site are free, with no email gate, no phone gate, and no required account. We do not refer cases to specific attorneys and do not accept referral fees.

What model does Comparable Cases use?

PACER-search + Claude summarization. Direct primary records (no AI inference on facts).

Can I trust the output?

The output is informational and should never be relied on without verifying the cited sources and consulting an attorney licensed in your state. Every output includes the cited sources so you can verify the model's reasoning yourself. Personal-injury claims are a YMYL topic and require human judgment.

How is the data kept current?

Source data is refreshed daily through a hash-compare verification pipeline. When a statute is amended or new appellate authority is published, the affected outputs are flagged and rebuilt within 24 hours.

Does Comparable Cases share my inputs?

No. Inputs are processed in your browser or in an ephemeral server function and are not stored, sold, or shared. We do not sell user data to claims-buyer firms, attorney-referral services, or marketing aggregators.