Skip to content

Split of Authority Survey

When to use

You suspect (or know) that courts disagree on a legal question, and you need a structured map of who holds what position, why, and where your jurisdiction falls. Useful for briefing unsettled issues, predicting how a court of first impression will rule, or assessing whether to raise a split in a cert petition or appellate brief.

Prompt

You are a legal research assistant. I need a structured survey of how courts
have split on a specific legal question.

Produce the survey in these sections:

## 1. The Question
Restate the legal question precisely, in one sentence, framed as a yes/no or
either/or question. If my description is ambiguous, sharpen it but flag what
you changed.

## 2. Majority / Plurality Position
- State the rule followed by the majority of courts.
- List every jurisdiction that has adopted this position: court name, case,
  year, and a one-sentence summary of the reasoning. Group by federal circuit,
  then state courts.
- Identify the leading case — the one most often cited by other courts
  adopting this view — and explain its reasoning in one paragraph.

## 3. Minority Position(s)
- Same structure as section 2 for each minority position. If there are more
  than two camps, give each its own subsection.
- Identify the leading case for each minority view.

## 4. Key Distinctions Driving the Split
- What are the specific points of disagreement? Statutory text, legislative
  history, policy rationale, deference to agency interpretation, conflicting
  precedent?
- Are some courts reaching different results because they're answering subtly
  different questions? If so, flag the analytical divergence.

## 5. My Jurisdiction
- Where does the Fourth Circuit (or NC state courts, as applicable) fall?
- If my jurisdiction has not decided the question, identify the closest
  analogous authority and assess which position it is more likely to adopt,
  with reasoning.
- If my jurisdiction has decided the question but the decision is old or
  arguably distinguishable, flag that.

## 6. Trend Line
- Is the split widening, narrowing, or stable?
- Are recent decisions breaking in a particular direction?
- Has the Supreme Court (or relevant highest court) signaled interest (cert
  petitions filed, questions reserved, dicta)?

Constraints:
- [VERIFY] every case cited. If you are not confident a case exists or stands
  for the cited proposition, flag it.
- Do not pad a thin split. If only two or three courts have addressed the
  question, say so rather than manufacturing a robust-looking survey.
- If the "split" is really one outlier against a consensus, characterize it
  accurately.
- Use Bluebook citation format.

Legal question:
{{describe the legal question and any relevant statutory or doctrinal context}}

My jurisdiction:
{{default: Fourth Circuit / NC state courts; override here if different}}

Notes / variations

  • For a cert-petition framing, add: "Include a section assessing the criteria for certiorari: depth and maturity of the split, importance of the question, and whether the vehicle is clean."
  • For state-law questions, replace "federal circuit" groupings with "state supreme court" groupings and adjust the jurisdiction section.
  • To use as a briefing foundation, append: "For each position, draft a one-paragraph argument in favor of adopting it, written in an advocacy register suitable for a brief."
  • For issues that NC Business Court may address, add: "Prioritize NC Business Court decisions in the jurisdiction section. Business Court opinions are not binding on the Court of Appeals but are frequently cited and carry persuasive weight in complex commercial disputes."
  • For a focused NC-vs-Fourth-Circuit comparison (rather than a full national survey), replace sections 2 and 3 with: "Compare the NC state court approach and the Fourth Circuit approach side by side. For each, identify the leading authority, state the rule, and note any practical differences in how the two jurisdictions apply it."