Case Analyzer Skill

Purpose

Conduct comprehensive legal case analysis to identify viable claims, evaluate strengths and weaknesses, map evidence requirements, and develop litigation strategy for civil rights and legal advocacy cases.

When to Use This Skill

When user says "analyze this case" or "help me with a new case"
During initial case intake and assessment
When evaluating potential causes of action
When mapping legal theories to case facts
When assessing case viability for litigation
When identifying discovery needs
When strategizing affirmative defenses to counter

When NOT to Use This Skill

For legal research (use legal-research-assistant skill instead)
For drafting legal documents (use legal-document-drafter skill instead)
For case archival (use arweave-case-archiver skill instead)
For calculating damages (use damages-calculator skill if available)
For trial preparation (use trial-prep skill if available)

Prerequisites

Basic case facts available (who, what, when, where)
Jurisdiction identified (federal, state, which court)
General understanding of harm/violation alleged
Access to reference files in references/ directory
Python 3.9+ for automation scripts (statute of limitations calculator)

Workflow

Step 1: Case Intake and Fact Gathering

Purpose: Collect essential case information systematically

Process:

Ask the user these intake questions in order:

What happened? (Chronological narrative of events)
- Request dates, times, locations
- Identify all parties involved
- Note sequence of events
Who is involved?
- Plaintiff(s) - individual or organization
- Defendant(s) - individual, organization, government entity
- Witnesses - who observed what
- Other parties - employers, supervisors, third parties
When did events occur?
- Specific dates of incidents
- Ongoing conduct vs. discrete events
- CRITICAL: Calculate statute of limitations immediately
Where did events take place?
- Geographic location (determines jurisdiction)
- Federal property vs. state property
- Public vs. private property
What harm resulted?
- Physical injuries
- Economic damages (lost wages, medical costs)
- Emotional distress
- Civil rights violations
- Property damage
What evidence exists?
- Documents (emails, contracts, policies)
- Video/audio recordings
- Photographs
- Witness statements
- Medical records
- Police reports

Output: Structured case facts document

markdown

## Case Facts Summary

**Incident Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Location**: [City, State] - [Specific location]
**Jurisdiction**: [Court]

### Parties
- **Plaintiff**: [Name] - [Description]
- **Defendant**: [Name/Entity] - [Role]
- **Witnesses**: [List]

### Narrative
[Chronological description of events]

### Harm Alleged
- [Injury type 1]
- [Injury type 2]

### Evidence Available
- [Document 1]
- [Recording 1]
- [Witness testimony]

Statute of Limitations Check:

Use

scripts/statute_of_limitations.py

immediately:

bash

python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
  --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
  --claim-type="1983" \
  --jurisdiction="california"

CRITICAL: If statute of limitations is approaching (<90 days), flag as URGENT

Step 2: Identify Applicable Legal Theories

Purpose: Match case facts to potential causes of action

Process:

Review case facts against legal frameworks in

references/causes-of-action.md

Federal Civil Rights Claims

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act):

Elements:
1. Defendant acted under color of state law
2. Defendant's conduct violated constitutional rights

When to Consider:

Police misconduct (excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution)
Jail/prison conditions (deliberate indifference to harm)
First Amendment violations (retaliation for protected speech)
Due process violations

Check for:

State actor involvement (police, sheriff, correctional officers, public officials)
Constitutional rights implicated (4th, 8th, 14th Amendments)

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

Title I: Employment discrimination
Title II: State/local government services discrimination
Title III: Public accommodations discrimination

When to Consider:

Disability discrimination by government entity
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation
Denial of access to services

State Law Claims

Review

references/state-tort-law.md

for:

Assault and Battery: Intentional harmful or offensive contact
False Imprisonment: Unlawful restraint of liberty
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Extreme and outrageous conduct
Negligence: Breach of duty causing harm

Analysis Framework:

For each potential claim, create preliminary assessment:

markdown

### Legal Theory: [Claim Name]

**Legal Basis**: [Statute, constitutional provision]

**Elements**:
1. [Element 1]
2. [Element 2]
3. [Element 3]

**Fact Mapping**:
- Element 1: [How facts support this element]
- Element 2: [How facts support this element]
- Element 3: [How facts support this element]

**Preliminary Viability**: [Strong | Moderate | Weak]

**Challenges**:
- [Potential defense 1]
- [Evidentiary gap]

Output: List of 2-5 viable legal theories ranked by strength

Step 3: Elements-Based Analysis

Purpose: Rigorously analyze whether facts satisfy each required legal element

Process:

For each identified claim (from Step 2), perform detailed elements analysis using

references/elements-checklists/

Example: § 1983 Excessive Force Claim

Load reference:

references/federal-civil-rights.md

→ § 1983 Elements

Required Elements:

Defendant acted under color of state law
Force used was objectively unreasonable (Graham v. Connor standard)
Plaintiff suffered injury

Elements Analysis Table:

markdown

| Element | Facts Supporting | Evidence Available | Strength | Notes |
|---------|------------------|-------------------|----------|-------|
| Color of law | Officer on duty, badge #1234 | Body camera, uniform | ★★★★★ | Clear state actor |
| Objectively unreasonable | No resistance shown, compliant | Video, 3 witnesses | ★★★★☆ | Strong but need expert |
| Injury | Broken arm, bruising | Medical records, photos | ★★★★★ | Well documented |

**Overall Element Support**: 14/15 stars - STRONG CASE

Graham v. Connor Factors (for excessive force):

Severity of crime at issue
Whether suspect poses immediate threat
Whether suspect actively resisting or fleeing

Analysis:

markdown

1. **Severity of Crime**: Misdemeanor jaywalking - LOW
2. **Immediate Threat**: No weapon, hands visible, compliant - NONE
3. **Resistance/Flight**: Video shows no resistance - NONE

**Conclusion**: Force objectively unreasonable under Graham

For Each Claim, Assess:

✅ Strong (4-5 stars): All elements clearly supported by facts and evidence
⚠️ Moderate (2-3 stars): Most elements supported but gaps exist
❌ Weak (0-1 stars): Critical elements missing or unsupported

Output: Elements analysis for top 2-3 claims

Step 4: Discovery Planning

Purpose: Identify what additional evidence is needed to prove elements

Process:

Based on elements analysis, create comprehensive discovery plan:

Documents to Request

Initial Disclosures (FRCP 26):

Witness list with contact information
Document list (descriptions)
Damages computation
Insurance agreements

Interrogatories (Questions to opposing party):

markdown

1. Identify all officers present at scene on [date]
2. Describe all use-of-force policies in effect on [date]
3. Detail training received by Officer [Name] on [topic]
4. Identify all internal affairs investigations of Officer [Name]
5. [Additional interrogatories - maximum 25 under FRCP]

Document Requests:

markdown

### Request 1: Incident Reports
All police reports, incident reports, and supplemental reports related to incident on [date]

### Request 2: Video Evidence
All body camera, dashboard camera, and surveillance footage from [time range]

### Request 3: Personnel Files
Complete personnel file for Officer [Name] including:
- Training records (use of force, de-escalation)
- Disciplinary history
- Prior complaints
- Performance evaluations

### Request 4: Policies and Procedures
All use-of-force policies in effect on [date]

### Request 5: Internal Investigations
All internal affairs investigations related to Officer [Name]

Depositions (Oral testimony under oath):

markdown

Priority Order:
1. **Defendant Officer(s)** - 7 hour deposition
   - Training and experience
   - Incident reconstruction
   - Force decision-making process

2. **Supervisor(s)** - 4 hour deposition
   - Oversight and training
   - Policy enforcement

3. **Eyewitnesses** - 2-3 hours each
   - What they observed
   - Credibility assessment

4. **Plaintiff** - 6 hours (prepare thoroughly)
   - Incident narrative
   - Injuries and damages
   - Medical treatment

Expert Witnesses Needed:

markdown

1. **Use of Force Expert**
   - Credentials: Former police chief, trainer
   - Purpose: Opine on reasonableness of force
   - Cost: $10,000 - $25,000

2. **Medical Expert**
   - Credentials: Orthopedic surgeon
   - Purpose: Causation of injuries, permanence
   - Cost: $5,000 - $15,000

3. **Economic Expert** (if wage loss)
   - Credentials: Economist, CPA
   - Purpose: Calculate economic damages
   - Cost: $5,000 - $10,000

Output: Comprehensive discovery plan organized by category

Step 5: Assess Affirmative Defenses and Weaknesses

Purpose: Anticipate opposing arguments and develop counter-strategies

Process:

Review

references/defenses.md

for common defenses:

Qualified Immunity (§ 1983 cases)

Defense Argument: "The constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the incident"

Two-Prong Test:

Did defendant violate constitutional right?
Was the right clearly established?

Our Response Strategy:

markdown

### Defeating Qualified Immunity

**Prong 1: Constitutional Violation**
- Video evidence shows clear excessive force
- No resistance, no threat = constitutional violation

**Prong 2: Clearly Established Law**
- **Case 1**: [Circuit Case Name] (20XX)
  - Holding: Force against compliant suspect unreasonable
  - Similarity: [Explain how facts parallel our case]

- **Case 2**: [Supreme Court Case]
  - Holding: Graham factors analysis
  - Application: All factors support plaintiff

**Conclusion**: Right was clearly established. QI should be denied.

Risk Assessment: [Low | Medium | High] Mitigation: Conduct thorough legal research on circuit precedents

Governmental Immunity (State Tort Claims)

Defense Argument: "Municipality has governmental immunity for discretionary acts"

Analysis:

markdown

**Immunity Type**: [Sovereign | Qualified | Discretionary]

**Exceptions Available**:
- Ministerial act exception
- Dangerous condition of public property
- [Jurisdiction-specific exceptions]

**Our Strategy**:
- Focus on federal § 1983 claim (no immunity)
- State claims as alternative/backup
- Identify applicable immunity exceptions

Contributory Negligence

Defense Argument: "Plaintiff's own actions contributed to injury"

Analysis:

markdown

**Defendant's Likely Arguments**:
- Plaintiff was jaywalking (crime)
- Plaintiff didn't immediately comply

**Our Counters**:
- Jaywalking is minor infraction, doesn't justify force
- Video shows compliance
- Contributory negligence not applicable to § 1983 excessive force

**Risk**: Low - Strong video evidence of compliance

Case Weaknesses to Address

Identify Honestly:

markdown

### Weakness 1: [Description]
**Issue**: Only plaintiff's testimony for initial contact
**Impact**: Credibility battle
**Mitigation**:
- Obtain body camera footage
- Depose witnesses
- Medical records corroborate injuries

### Weakness 2: [Description]
**Issue**: Minor physical injuries (no hospitalization)
**Impact**: Lower damages
**Mitigation**:
- Emphasize constitutional violation (nominal + punitive damages available)
- Emotional distress damages
- Focus on deterrence value of verdict

### Weakness 3: [Description]
**Issue**: [Specific weakness]
**Impact**: [How it affects case]
**Mitigation**: [Strategy to address]

Output: Comprehensive defense analysis with counter-strategies

Step 6: Generate Case Analysis Report

Purpose: Create comprehensive documented analysis for case file

Process:

Synthesize all prior steps into structured CASE_ANALYSIS.md:

markdown

# Case Analysis: [Case Name]

**Generated**: [ISO Timestamp]
**Analyst**: case-analyzer skill v1.0.0
**Jurisdiction**: [Court]

---

## Executive Summary

[2-3 paragraph summary of case viability and recommended strategy]

**Recommended Primary Strategy**: [e.g., Federal § 1983 claim in U.S. District Court]

**Estimated Likelihood of Success**: [Percentage or qualitative assessment]

**Estimated Settlement Range**: $[Low] - $[High]

**Statute of Limitations**: [Date] ([X] days remaining)

**Urgency**: [CRITICAL <30 days | URGENT <90 days | MODERATE <180 days | ROUTINE]

---

## Case Facts

### Incident Summary
[Chronological narrative - 3-5 paragraphs]

### Parties
- **Plaintiff**: [Name], [Age], [Occupation]
- **Defendant**: [Name/Entity], [Role]
- **Witnesses**: [List with brief descriptions]

### Evidence Inventory
| Evidence Type | Description | Status | Location |
|---------------|-------------|--------|----------|
| Body camera | Officer #1234 footage | Requested | City PD |
| Medical records | ER visit 12/15/25 | ✓ Obtained | Case file |
| Witness statements | 3 civilian witnesses | Pending | To be deposed |

---

## Legal Analysis

### Identified Claims

#### Primary Claim: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Excessive Force

**Legal Basis**: Fourth Amendment via § 1983

**Elements Analysis**:

| Element | Support | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| Color of state law | Officer on duty | ★★★★★ | Badge, uniform |
| Constitutional violation | Force unreasonable | ★★★★☆ | Video, witnesses |
| Injury | Physical harm | ★★★★★ | Medical records |

**Overall Viability**: ★★★★☆ (STRONG)

**Estimated Damages**: $75,000 - $200,000
- Compensatory: $25,000 - $75,000
- Punitive: $50,000 - $125,000 (if malice/recklessness shown)
- Attorney's fees: Recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

#### Alternative Claim: State Assault and Battery

**Legal Basis**: [State] Common Law Tort

**Elements Analysis**:
[Similar format as above]

**Overall Viability**: ★★★☆☆ (MODERATE)

**Challenges**:
- Governmental immunity may apply
- Lower damages than § 1983
- Purpose: Backup if federal claim fails

---

## Discovery Plan

### Phase 1: Initial Disclosures (Due: [Date])
- [ ] Witness list
- [ ] Document list
- [ ] Damages computation
- [ ] Insurance disclosure

### Phase 2: Written Discovery (Serve by: [Date])

**Interrogatories** (25 maximum):
1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]
...

**Document Requests** (50 recommended):
1. All police reports re: incident
2. All body/dashboard camera footage
3. Personnel files for Officer [Name]
...

### Phase 3: Depositions (Complete by: [Date])

| Deponent | Role | Priority | Duration | Topics |
|----------|------|----------|----------|--------|
| Officer Smith | Defendant | HIGH | 7 hours | Force decision, training |
| Witness Jones | Eyewitness | MEDIUM | 2 hours | Observations |
| Plaintiff | Party | HIGH | 6 hours | Incident, injuries, damages |

### Phase 4: Expert Witnesses

| Expert Type | Name | Purpose | Cost Est | Deadline |
|-------------|------|---------|----------|----------|
| Use of force | [TBD] | Opine on reasonableness | $15K | Discovery close |
| Medical | [TBD] | Injury causation | $10K | Discovery close |

---

## Affirmative Defenses & Counter-Strategies

### Defense 1: Qualified Immunity

**Defendant's Argument**:
"Right not clearly established; officer entitled to immunity"

**Our Counter-Strategy**:
1. Identify circuit precedents with similar facts
2. Emphasize obviousness of constitutional violation
3. Cite: [Case 1], [Case 2], [Case 3]

**Risk Level**: MEDIUM
**Likelihood of Success in Defeating**: 70%

### Defense 2: [Additional Defense]
[Similar format]

---

## Case Strengths and Weaknesses

### Strengths ✓
1. **Video Evidence**: Body camera shows clear lack of resistance
2. **Injury Documentation**: Medical records well-documented
3. **Precedent**: Strong circuit law on excessive force
4. **Credible Plaintiff**: No criminal history, steady employment

### Weaknesses ⚠️
1. **Minor Crime**: Jaywalking is low-level infraction
   - **Mitigation**: Emphasize this strengthens our case (force disproportionate)

2. **Limited Physical Injury**: No hospitalization
   - **Mitigation**: Focus on constitutional violation + emotional distress

3. **Witness Credibility**: Only 1 witness to initial contact
   - **Mitigation**: Obtain body camera, depose all witnesses early

---

## Recommended Strategy

### Forum Selection
**Primary**: U.S. District Court, [District]
- **Rationale**: Federal jurisdiction via § 1983, federal judges experienced in civil rights

**Alternative**: State Superior Court
- **Use if**: Federal court dismisses on qualified immunity (unlikely)

### Claim Prioritization
1. **Primary**: § 1983 excessive force (strongest claim)
2. **Alternative**: State assault/battery (backup)
3. **Omit**: [Weaker claims with high risk]

### Settlement Posture
**Pre-Suit Demand**: $150,000
**Post-Suit Settlement Range**: $100,000 - $175,000
**Trial Verdict Estimate**: $150,000 - $250,000

**Timing**:
- Demand letter: Immediate (preserve SOL)
- Mediation: Post-discovery (6-9 months)
- Trial: 12-18 months if no settlement

---

## Next Steps

### Immediate (Week 1)
- [ ] Calculate exact SOL deadline (scripts/statute_of_limitations.py)
- [ ] Draft and send demand letter to defendant
- [ ] Preserve evidence (send preservation letter)

### Short-term (Weeks 2-4)
- [ ] Conduct legal research on qualified immunity
- [ ] Draft federal complaint (use legal-document-drafter skill)
- [ ] Identify and retain expert witnesses

### Medium-term (Months 1-3)
- [ ] File complaint
- [ ] Serve defendants
- [ ] Initiate discovery process

### Long-term (Months 4-12)
- [ ] Complete discovery
- [ ] Prepare for trial or mediation
- [ ] Archive case documents to Arweave (arweave-case-archiver skill)

---

## Statute of Limitations Tracker

**Incident Date**: 2025-06-15
**Claim Type**: § 1983 (uses state personal injury SOL)
**Jurisdiction**: California (2-year SOL)
**Filing Deadline**: 2027-06-15
**Days Remaining**: 547 days
**Urgency**: ROUTINE (adequate time)

**Calculated by**: scripts/statute_of_limitations.py
**Last Checked**: [ISO Timestamp]

---

## Archive Information

**Case ID**: [UUID]
**Arweave TX IDs**: [To be populated after archival]
**Last Updated**: [ISO Timestamp]
**Next Review**: [Date + 30 days]

---

**END OF CASE ANALYSIS**

Quality Check:

All sections complete
Legal citations accurate
Evidence mapped to elements
Discovery plan comprehensive
Defense analysis thorough
Next steps actionable
SOL calculated and verified

Error Handling

Scenario: Insufficient Facts Provided

Symptom: User provides vague description like "police mistreated me"

Response:

I notice we need more detailed facts to conduct thorough analysis. Let me ask some targeted questions:

1. What specifically did the officer(s) do? (describe physical actions)
2. When did this occur? (exact date and time if possible)
3. Where did this take place? (city, state, specific location)
4. What injuries did you sustain? (physical, emotional, economic)
5. Do you have any documentation? (reports, medical records, video)

Once we have these details, I can identify viable legal claims and assess case strength.

Escalation: If user cannot provide basic facts, suggest:

Obtain police report
Gather medical records
Interview witnesses
Return when facts are better documented

Scenario: Novel Legal Issue

Symptom: Facts don't clearly fit known causes of action

Response:

markdown

## Novel Legal Issue Identified

**Issue**: [Description of novel issue]

**Why Novel**: [Explanation - e.g., "No binding precedent in this circuit"]

**Recommended Approach**:
1. Flag for legal research (use legal-research-assistant skill)
2. Research analogous cases in other circuits
3. Consult with senior attorney specializing in [area]
4. Consider test case strategy if issue important

**Risk**: [HIGH - outcome uncertain]
**Recommendation**: Proceed with caution; may require expert consultation

Scenario: Statute of Limitations Expired

Symptom: SOL calculator returns negative days remaining

Response:

markdown

⚠️ **CRITICAL ISSUE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED**

**Incident Date**: [Date]
**SOL Deadline**: [Date - in past]
**Days Overdue**: [X] days

**Implications**:
- Case likely barred from filing
- Exceptions are rare and narrow

**Possible Exceptions to Explore**:
1. **Tolling**: Was plaintiff minor, incapacitated, or fraudulently concealed?
2. **Discovery Rule**: Did plaintiff reasonably discover injury later?
3. **Continuing Violation**: Is conduct ongoing?
4. **Equitable Tolling**: Extraordinary circumstances?

**URGENT ACTION REQUIRED**:
Consult experienced attorney immediately to assess exception applicability.
Do NOT proceed with case analysis until SOL issue resolved.

Scenario: Jurisdictional Complexity

Symptom: Multiple potential forums (federal, multiple states, tribal, etc.)

Response:

markdown

## Jurisdictional Analysis Required

**Complexity Detected**: [e.g., "Incident spans multiple states"]

**Potential Forums**:
1. **U.S. District Court - [District]**
   - Pros: [Federal question jurisdiction, experienced judges]
   - Cons: [Qualified immunity more common]

2. **[State] Superior Court**
   - Pros: [Jury pool favorable, state law claims easier]
   - Cons: [Slower docket, less civil rights experience]

3. **[Other Forum]**
   - Pros: [...]
   - Cons: [...]

**Recommendation**: Analyze forum selection as separate task
**Tools**: Use jurisdiction_analyzer.py script (if available)
**Consult**: Attorney licensed in all relevant jurisdictions

Quality Standards

Output Quality Checklist

Before marking case analysis complete, verify:

Completeness: All 6 workflow steps executed
Accuracy: Legal citations correct (case names, statutes)
Element Mapping: Every element analyzed with evidence
Risk Assessment: Strengths and weaknesses candidly assessed
Actionability: Next steps are specific and time-bound
SOL Verified: Deadline calculated and flagged if urgent
Professional Tone: Objective, analytical, non-judgmental
Organized: Clear structure with headers and tables
Archived: Ready for Arweave permanent storage

Red Flags (Do Not Proceed)

❌ Statute of limitations < 30 days without immediate action plan
❌ Critical facts missing (who, what, when, where)
❌ Jurisdictional issues unresolved
❌ Legal issues beyond analyzer's expertise (complex constitutional law, novel theories)
❌ Conflicts of interest detected

If Red Flag Detected: Escalate to supervising attorney

Resources

Reference Files

Load these as needed during analysis:

```
references/causes-of-action.md
```
- Comprehensive list of federal/state claims
```
references/federal-civil-rights.md
```
- § 1983, ADA, Fair Housing detailed
```
references/state-tort-law.md
```
- State-specific tort claims by jurisdiction
```
references/elements-checklists/
```
- Element-by-element analysis templates
```
references/defenses.md
```
- Common affirmative defenses and counters
```
references/qualified-immunity.md
```
- QI doctrine and defeat strategies

Automation Scripts

scripts/statute_of_limitations.py

- Calculate filing deadlines

bash

python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
  --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
  --claim-type="1983" \
  --jurisdiction="california"

```
scripts/jurisdiction_analyzer.py
```
- Determine proper venue (optional)
```
scripts/damages_estimator.py
```
- Estimate settlement range (optional)

Templates

```
assets/intake-questionnaire.md
```
- Client intake form
```
assets/case-analysis-template.md
```
- Blank analysis template

Integration with MISJustice Platform

Related Skills

legal-research-assistant: Use after Step 2 to research identified claims
legal-document-drafter: Use after Step 6 to draft complaint
arweave-case-archiver: Use after Step 6 to permanently archive analysis

Related Commands

```
/case-plan
```
: Orchestrates this skill + research + drafting
```
/legal-session-start
```
: Loads legal context before case analysis

MCP Dependencies

None currently. Future: Legal database MCPs (Westlaw, LexisNexis)

Orchestration

Can be chained with other skills:

case-analyzer → legal-research-assistant → legal-document-drafter → arweave-case-archiver

Examples

Example 1: § 1983 Excessive Force Case

Input (User):

I was arrested for jaywalking on December 15, 2025. The officer tackled me to the ground even though I wasn't resisting. I suffered a broken arm and needed surgery. I have body camera footage showing I had my hands up. This happened in Oakland, California.

Output (case-analyzer):

markdown

# Case Analysis: [Plaintiff] v. Oakland Police Department

## Executive Summary

Strong § 1983 excessive force claim against arresting officer. Video evidence shows plaintiff compliant with hands up when tackled, resulting in significant physical injury (broken arm requiring surgery). Incident occurred 17 days ago, SOL deadline is December 15, 2027 (729 days remaining).

**Recommended Strategy**: File federal § 1983 claim in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Estimated settlement value: $100,000 - $250,000.

**Urgency**: MODERATE (adequate time but act promptly to preserve evidence)

## Identified Claims

### Primary: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

**Elements Analysis**:
| Element | Support | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| Color of law | Oakland PD officer on duty | ★★★★★ | Body camera, badge |
| Objectively unreasonable force | Tackling compliant suspect for jaywalking | ★★★★★ | Body camera, medical records |
| Injury | Broken arm requiring surgery | ★★★★★ | Medical records, X-rays, surgical notes |

**Graham v. Connor Analysis**:
1. Severity of crime: Jaywalking (infraction) - MINIMAL
2. Immediate threat: Hands up, compliant - NONE
3. Active resistance/flight: No resistance shown on video - NONE

**Conclusion**: All Graham factors favor plaintiff. Force objectively unreasonable.

**Viability**: ★★★★★ (VERY STRONG)

[... continues with full analysis ...]

Example 2: ADA Disability Discrimination

Input (User):

I use a wheelchair. Last month, the county courthouse had no elevator working and staff refused to help me access the courtroom on the second floor. I missed my hearing because of this. This was in Tampa, Florida on January 5, 2026.

Output (case-analyzer):

markdown

# Case Analysis: [Plaintiff] v. [County] Courthouse

## Executive Summary

Strong ADA Title II claim against county for failure to provide access to government services. Plaintiff, wheelchair user, denied access to second-floor courtroom due to broken elevator and staff refusal to assist, causing missed court hearing.

**Recommended Strategy**: Federal ADA Title II claim + potential § 1983 claim (deprivation of court access). Settlement range: $25,000 - $75,000 + injunctive relief.

## Identified Claims

### Primary: ADA Title II - Denial of Access to Government Services

**Elements Analysis**:
| Element | Support | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| Plaintiff has disability | Wheelchair user (physical impairment) | ★★★★★ | Medical documentation needed |
| Otherwise qualified | Had court hearing scheduled | ★★★★★ | Court docket |
| Excluded from services | Denied courtroom access | ★★★★★ | Witness testimony, court records |
| Because of disability | Inaccessible second floor | ★★★★★ | Physical inspection, photos |

**Viability**: ★★★★★ (VERY STRONG)

**Estimated Damages**:
- Compensatory: $25,000 - $50,000 (emotional distress, legal consequences of missed hearing)
- Injunctive relief: Elevator repair, accessibility plan
- Attorney's fees: Recoverable under ADA

### Alternative: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Access to Courts

[... continues with full analysis ...]

Example 3: Weak Case (Honest Assessment)

Input (User):

I got a speeding ticket last week and the cop was really rude to me. Can I sue for civil rights violations?

Output (case-analyzer):

markdown

# Case Analysis: Speeding Stop

## Executive Summary

**Case Viability**: ★☆☆☆☆ (VERY WEAK - NOT RECOMMENDED)

After analyzing the facts, this case does not present a viable civil rights claim. While the officer's rudeness was unprofessional, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

## Analysis

### Potential Claim: § 1983 Violation

**Why This Fails**:
1. **No Constitutional Right Violated**: Rudeness alone does not violate the Constitution
2. **No Physical Force**: Traffic stop without excessive force is lawful
3. **No Unlawful Detention**: Speeding provides probable cause for stop
4. **No Actionable Harm**: Emotional distress from rudeness insufficient

**Supreme Court Precedent**:
"The Fourth Amendment does not forbid officers from being rude" - controlling case law

### Alternative Options

1. **Traffic Court**: Challenge the ticket on its merits
2. **Police Complaint**: File internal affairs complaint about officer conduct
3. **Not Recommended**: Federal civil rights lawsuit (likely dismissed, waste of resources)

## Recommendation

**Do NOT pursue civil rights litigation**. This case does not meet the threshold for federal constitutional claims.

**Alternative Actions**:
- Contest ticket in traffic court if factual disputes
- File police complaint if officer conduct warrants discipline
- Accept outcome and move forward

**Consultation**: If you believe there are additional facts not disclosed (physical force, discriminatory statements, unlawful search), please provide those details for re-analysis.

Version History

1.0.0 (2026-01-01): Initial release
- Comprehensive 6-step workflow
- Federal civil rights focus (§ 1983, ADA)
- State tort law integration
- Discovery planning module
- Defense analysis framework
- SOL automation integration

Troubleshooting

Issue: Skill produces overly optimistic case assessment

Solution:

Re-review Step 5 (affirmative defenses)
Ensure weaknesses are honestly identified
Apply "red team" thinking - argue against your own case
Consult qualified-immunity.md for realistic QI assessment

Issue: Legal citations are outdated or incorrect

Solution:

Verify citations in
```
references/
```
files are current
Update reference files annually
Flag for legal research if citation uncertain
Use legal-research-assistant skill for verification

Issue: Jurisdiction-specific rules not addressed

Solution:

Ensure
```
references/state-tort-law.md
```
includes your jurisdiction
Add jurisdiction-specific reference files as needed
Consult local counsel for unique state rules
Note jurisdiction limitations in analysis

END OF SKILL DOCUMENTATION

case-analyzer

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Case Analyzer Skill

Purpose

When to Use This Skill

When NOT to Use This Skill

Prerequisites

Workflow

Step 1: Case Intake and Fact Gathering

Step 2: Identify Applicable Legal Theories

Federal Civil Rights Claims

State Law Claims

Step 3: Elements-Based Analysis

Step 4: Discovery Planning

Documents to Request

Step 5: Assess Affirmative Defenses and Weaknesses

Qualified Immunity (§ 1983 cases)

Governmental Immunity (State Tort Claims)

Contributory Negligence

Case Weaknesses to Address

Step 6: Generate Case Analysis Report

Error Handling

Scenario: Insufficient Facts Provided

Scenario: Novel Legal Issue

Scenario: Statute of Limitations Expired

Scenario: Jurisdictional Complexity

Quality Standards

Output Quality Checklist

Red Flags (Do Not Proceed)

Resources

Reference Files

Automation Scripts

Templates

Integration with MISJustice Platform

Related Skills

Related Commands

MCP Dependencies

Orchestration

Examples

Example 1: § 1983 Excessive Force Case

Example 2: ADA Disability Discrimination

Example 3: Weak Case (Honest Assessment)

Version History

Troubleshooting