docketrouter
Models / Anthropic

Claude Haiku 4.5

by Anthropic · anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5 is Anthropic’s fastest and most efficient model, delivering near-frontier intelligence at a fraction of the cost and latency of larger Claude models. Matching Claude Sonnet 4’s performance...

reasoningtool-usevisionreleased 2025-10-15
JSONRoute to this model
Legal score · juiced
89%
6/6 tasks · raw 87%
Context
200K
max output 64K
Input
$1
per 1M tokens
Output
$5
per 1M tokens
Suite cost
$0.1843
1817ms mean latency

Benchmark results

TaskCategoryRawJuicedCorrectLatencyCostRan
Hearsay IdentificationEvidence100%100%10/102302ms$0.02742026-08-25
Bluebook Citation FormatResearch & Writing100%100%8/82466ms$0.02962026-08-25
Federal Civil ProcedureProcedure100%100%12/121383ms$0.03152026-08-25
Limitations ArithmeticProcedure38%50%4/81711ms$0.02472026-08-25
Contract Clause ClassificationContracts100%100%12/121286ms$0.03002026-08-25
Citation Hallucination ResistanceReliability83%83%10/121752ms$0.04112026-08-25

Measured by DocketBuster

These numbers come from DocketBuster's own legal battery, not from DocketRouter's suite. Latest run per metric, with n and a 95% Wilson interval where the source reports one. See docketbuster.com/benchmarks.

MetricValuenIntervalMeasured
Statute pinpoint, exact section (no retrieval)0.0% (0/300)30095% CI 0.0% to 1.3%2026-08-22
Statute pinpoint, exact section (with DocketBuster retrieval)0.0% (0/307)30795% CI 0.0% to 1.2%2026-08-25
Say-nothing rate (declines to bluff when the answer is not in the record)99.0%29995% CI 97.1% to 99.7%2026-08-22
Abstained on statute pinpoint100.0% (307/307)307count, no interval reported2026-08-25
Coaching quality (GW-14x, 0 to 8)7.36 / 8-rubric mean, no interval reported2026-08-22

Source files: hard-llm-ortier-haiku45.json, gw14x-ortier-haiku45.json, hard-llm-level-haiku45-statute_rag.json. Raw model name in source: anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5.

Per-item answers

Every graded answer, so you can audit each miss.

Hearsay Identification juiced 100%
  • To prove the light was red, plaintiff offers a bystander's testimony that a passerby told him, 'That car ran the red light.' Is the passerby's statement hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The passerby's statement ("That car ran the red light") is an out-of-court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the light was red. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The passerby is not testifying at trial, and the statement is being offered for its truth. It does not fall within any hearsay exception.1812ms
  • To prove that the landlord had notice of the leak, tenant testifies she told the landlord, 'The ceiling in unit 4 is leaking.' The statement is offered only to show the landlord heard it. Is it hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement is offered to prove that the landlord *heard* the tenant's words—i.e., that the communication occurred—not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the ceiling is actually leaking). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Here, the truth of the leak is irrelevant; only notice/receipt of the communication matters.2651ms
  • To prove a contract was formed, plaintiff testifies that defendant said, 'I accept your offer.' Is defendant's statement hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement is offered to prove the contract was formed (i.e., that acceptance occurred), not for the truth of the underlying proposition. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Here, the matter asserted—that defendant accepts—is itself the operative fact creating the contract, not a proposition about some other fact. The statement is verbal conduct constituting contract formation, not hearsay.2372ms
  • To prove the defendant was in Chicago on March 3, the prosecution offers a letter from defendant's sister stating, 'Bob was here in Chicago with me on March 3.' Is the letter hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The letter is an out-of-court statement (Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the defendant was in Chicago on March 3. The sister is not testifying at trial, so it meets the hearsay definition under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). None of the exceptions in 801(d) apply: the sister is not a declarant-witness subject to cross-examination, and this is not an opposing party's statement.1995ms
  • On cross-examination, defense counsel confronts a witness with her earlier deposition statement that contradicts her trial testimony, offered solely to impeach her credibility. Is the deposition statement hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The deposition statement is not hearsay when used solely to impeach. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) excludes from the hearsay definition a prior inconsistent statement given under penalty of perjury at a deposition, provided the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination at trial. Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) permits any party to use a deposition to contradict or impeach testimony, and impeachment is an allowed use under the Federal Rules of Evidence that does not require proving the truth of the matter asserted.2657ms
  • To prove the brakes were defective, plaintiff offers a mechanic's written note reading, 'Rear brake line corroded through.' The mechanic does not testify. Is the note hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The mechanic's written note is a statement (Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the rear brake line was corroded through. The mechanic does not testify at trial, so the declarant is not making the statement while testifying at the current proceeding (Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)). The note therefore meets the definition of hearsay. None of the exceptions apply: the declarant is unavailable and there is no indication of former testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)), and business records or other hearsay exceptions are not established here.2806ms
  • To show the declarant was alive at 9 p.m., a witness testifies that at 9 p.m. the declarant said, 'What a beautiful evening.' Is the statement hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement "What a beautiful evening" is offered to prove the declarant was alive at 9 p.m.—not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the evening was beautiful). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Here, the truth of the assertion is irrelevant; only the fact that the declarant spoke at that time matters.2137ms
  • To prove the defendant owned the gun, the prosecution offers testimony that an informant said, 'That's Marcus's gun.' Is the informant's statement hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The informant's statement ("That's Marcus's gun") is an out-of-court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the defendant owned the gun. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The informant is not testifying at trial, so it meets the hearsay definition unless an exception applies. No exception is evident here.2152ms
  • In a defamation suit, plaintiff offers testimony that defendant said to a crowd, 'Plaintiff is a thief.' The statement is offered to prove the defamatory words were spoken. Is it hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement is offered to prove the defamatory words were actually spoken (an element of the defamation claim), not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that plaintiff is actually a thief). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Here, the truth of the accusation is irrelevant; what matters is whether defendant made the statement at all.2525ms
  • To prove the price agreed, plaintiff offers an email from a third party to plaintiff stating, 'The seller told me the price was $50,000.' Is the seller's statement, as relayed in the email, hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The seller's statement ("the price was $50,000") is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the price actually was $50,000. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The seller is not testifying at trial, and the statement is being offered through an email from a third party. This is classic hearsay: an out-of-court statement offered to prove its truth.1912ms
Bluebook Citation Format juiced 100%
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). B. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). C. Brown vs. Board of Education, 483 U.S. 347 (1954). D. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., U.S. 347, 483 (1954).gold: Bgot: **B** The correct Bluebook citation is **B. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).** This follows proper Bluebook format: - "v." (not "vs.") for versus - "Bd. of Educ." (standard abbreviations for case names) - "347 U.S. 483" (volume, reporter, page) - Year in parentheses Option A omits required abbreviations. Option C reverses the volume and page numbers and uses "vs." Option D misstates the page citation format.2257ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966. B. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. C. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). D. Miranda v. Arizona, 436 U.S. 384 (1966).gold: Cgot: **C** The correct Bluebook citation format for cases is: Case Name, Volume Reporter Page (Year). The year goes in parentheses at the end, after the page number. Option C follows this format correctly. Option D has the volume and page reversed (436 U.S. 384 is incorrect; the case is at 384 U.S. 436).2309ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation to the federal question statute? A. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. B. 28 USC 1331. C. 28 U.S.C. §1331 (2024 ed.). D. Title 28, § 1331 U.S.C.gold: Agot: I cannot verify the federal question statute citation from the RETRIEVED AUTHORITIES provided. While the authorities reference various U.S.C. citations (e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2072, 28 U.S.C. § 1451), they do not include 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or discuss the federal question statute. Without access to the actual Bluebook rules or confirmation of the correct citation format in the retrieved materials, I cannot reliably answer which format is correct. However, if forced to choose based on standard Bluebook citation form for U.S.C. sections (which typically uses the format "Title U.S.C. § section"), **A** appears most consistent with conventional federal statutory citation practice. **A**2979ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) B. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 64 U.S. 304 (1938). C. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 1938. D. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).gold: Dgot: **D** The correct Bluebook citation is **D. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).** This follows proper Bluebook format: case name (with standard abbreviations like "R.R." for Railroad), reporter volume and page (304 U.S. 64), and year in parentheses. Option A uses the full "Railroad Co." instead of the standard abbreviation. Options B reverses the reporter citation (64 U.S. 304 is incorrect), and Option C omits parentheses around the year.2551ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Reporter case? A. Smith v. Jones, 123 F3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997). B. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997). C. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (Ninth Circuit 1997). D. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.) (1997).gold: Bgot: **B** The correct Bluebook citation format for a Federal Reporter case requires: - A period after "F" in the reporter abbreviation: **F.3d** (not "F3d") - The circuit in parentheses with the year: **(9th Cir. 1997)** (not "Ninth Circuit" spelled out, and not separated from the year) Option B follows this format correctly.2267ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Rule? A. F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). B. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 12(b)(6).gold: Cgot: **C** The correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is **Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).** - Option A uses an incorrect abbreviation (F.R.C.P. instead of Fed. R. Civ. P.) - Option B spells out "Proc." instead of using the abbreviation "P." - Option D uses a section symbol (§) rather than the parenthetical format required for Federal Rules - Option C follows the standard Bluebook format for citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2010ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). B. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). C. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007). D. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007).gold: Agot: **A** Under the Bluebook (21st ed.), the correct citation to a U.S. Supreme Court case is: - Party names abbreviated per Bluebook Rule 10.2.1(c) → "Bell Atl. Corp." (not "Bell Atlantic Corp.") - U.S. Reports citation with periods and spaces → "550 U.S. 544" - Year in parentheses → "(2007)" - No circuit designation for Supreme Court cases Option A matches this format exactly. Option B fails to abbreviate the party name. Option C incorrectly adds "S. Ct." (that reporter is not used for Supreme Court opinions cited to U.S. Reports). Option D omits the period after "U.S."3431ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook pinpoint citation? A. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678 (2009). B. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, p. 678 (2009). C. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), 678. D. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).gold: Dgot: **D** Under Bluebook format, pinpoint citations to U.S. Supreme Court cases use a comma followed by the page number, with no "at," "p.," or other intervening language. The correct form is: *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).1922ms
Federal Civil Procedure juiced 100%
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), how many days after being served with the summons and complaint does a defendant have to serve an answer (absent waiver)?gold: 21got: 211016ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs motions for summary judgment? Give the rule number.gold: 56got: 56899ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), within how many days after the complaint is filed must a defendant be served?gold: 90got: 901279ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), how many written interrogatories (including discrete subparts) may a party serve on another party without leave of court or stipulation?gold: 25got: 251610ms
  • Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), how many days after entry of judgment must a notice of appeal be filed in a civil case where the United States is not a party?gold: 30got: 301191ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs class actions? Give the rule number.gold: 23got: 231067ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions for presenting frivolous or improper papers to the court? Give the rule number.gold: 11got: 112289ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1), a deposition is limited to one day of how many hours, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered?gold: 7got: 71225ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs the scope of discovery and initial disclosures? Give the rule number.gold: 26got: 261183ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure sets the general rules of pleading, including the 'short and plain statement' requirement? Give the rule number.gold: 8got: 81481ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2), how many days does the United States (or a U.S. agency or officer sued in an official capacity) have to serve an answer after service?gold: 60got: 601606ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than how many days after entry of the judgment?gold: 28got: 281744ms
Limitations Arithmetic juiced 50%
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from the date of injury. Injury occurred on March 10, 2022. Suit was filed on March 9, 2024. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: TIMELY The suit was filed one day before the two-year limitations period expired (March 10, 2024). Filing on March 9, 2024 is within the deadline.1521ms
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from the date of injury. Injury occurred on March 10, 2022. Suit was filed on March 11, 2024. Is the suit timely?gold: UNTIMELYgot: TIMELY The suit was filed within two years of the March 10, 2022 injury date (filed March 11, 2024 = 2 years and 1 day after injury).1285ms
  • Assume a four-year limitations period for breach of a written contract, running from the date of breach. Breach occurred on July 1, 2020. Suit was filed on June 30, 2024. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: TIMELY The four-year limitations period runs from July 1, 2020, and expires on July 1, 2024. Suit filed on June 30, 2024, is one day before expiration and therefore timely.1370ms
  • Assume a one-year limitations period running from the date plaintiff discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the injury. The injury occurred on January 5, 2021, but plaintiff did not and could not reasonably have discovered it until November 20, 2022. Suit was filed on October 1, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: UNTIMELY The one-year limitations period runs from November 20, 2022 (discovery date), expiring November 20, 2023. The October 1, 2023 filing is within that period, making it timely under the stated limitations rule. Wait—I need to recalculate: October 1, 2023 is *before* November 20, 2023. **TIMELY**2011ms
  • Assume a three-year limitations period running from the date of injury, with no discovery rule. Injury occurred on February 29, 2020. Suit was filed on March 1, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: UNTIMELYgot: TIMELY The three-year limitations period from February 29, 2020 expires on February 29, 2023. Suit filed on March 1, 2023 is one day late. Wait—I must reconsider: March 1, 2023 is *after* February 29, 2023, so the suit is filed after the deadline. **UNTIMELY**1855ms
  • Assume a three-year limitations period running from the date of injury. Injury occurred on February 29, 2020. Suit was filed on February 28, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: TIMELY The three-year limitations period from February 29, 2020 expires on February 29, 2023. The suit filed on February 28, 2023 is one day before expiration, therefore timely.1449ms
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from accrual, and that the period was tolled for exactly 90 days while defendant was out of the jurisdiction. Accrual: May 1, 2021. Suit filed: August 15, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: UNTIMELYgot: TIMELY **Calculation:** - Limitations period: 2 years = 730 days - Tolling: 90 days (defendant out of jurisdiction) - Total time allowed: 820 days - Accrual to filing: May 1, 2021 to August 15, 2023 = 836 days Wait—recalculating: May 1, 2021 to May 1, 2023 is exactly 2 years (730 days). May 1, 2023 to August 15, 2023 is 106 days. Total elapsed: 836 days. With 90-day tolling, the deadline extends to 820 days from accrual. Filing at 836 days exceeds this. **UNTIMELY**2322ms
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from accrual, and that the period was tolled for exactly 90 days while defendant was out of the jurisdiction. Accrual: May 1, 2021. Suit filed: July 15, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: TIMELY **Calculation:** - Limitations period: 2 years = 730 days - Tolling: 90 days (defendant out of jurisdiction) - Total time allowed: 820 days - Accrual to filing: May 1, 2021 to July 15, 2023 = 806 days - 806 days < 820 days allowed The suit was filed within the tolled limitations period.1875ms
Contract Clause Classification juiced 100%
  • Clause: 'This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to its conflict of laws principles.'gold: Governing Lawgot: **Governing Law**1256ms
  • Clause: 'During the Term and for a period of eighteen (18) months thereafter, Consultant shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any business that competes with the Company within the United States.'gold: Non-Competegot: Non-Compete1206ms
  • Clause: 'Supplier shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Buyer and its affiliates from and against any and all losses, damages, liabilities and expenses arising out of any third-party claim alleging that the Products infringe any patent.'gold: Indemnificationgot: Indemnification1189ms
  • Clause: 'In no event shall either party be liable for any indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, and each party's aggregate liability under this Agreement shall not exceed the fees paid in the twelve months preceding the claim.'gold: Limitation of Liabilitygot: Limitation of Liability1243ms
  • Clause: 'Recipient shall hold the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information in strict confidence and shall not disclose it to any third party without prior written consent, for a period of five years following disclosure.'gold: Confidentialitygot: **Confidentiality**956ms
  • Clause: 'Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice if the other party materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within the notice period.'gold: Terminationgot: Termination1315ms
  • Clause: 'Neither party may assign or transfer this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, except to a successor in connection with a merger or sale of substantially all of its assets.'gold: Assignmentgot: **Assignment**1059ms
  • Clause: 'Neither party shall be liable for any failure or delay in performance due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including acts of God, war, terrorism, labor disputes, or governmental action.'gold: Force Majeuregot: Force Majeure844ms
  • Clause: 'THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE LIABILITY OF LICENSOR FOR ALL CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100).'gold: Limitation of Liabilitygot: **Limitation of Liability** This clause caps the licensor's total exposure for claims under the agreement at a fixed monetary amount, which is the defining characteristic of a limitation of liability provision. While the retrieved authorities address limitation of liability in the admiralty context (Fed. R. Civ. P. F), the clause itself is a standard contractual limitation-of-liability mechanism applicable to commercial agreements generally.1994ms
  • Clause: 'Customer agrees to indemnify Provider against all claims, damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from Customer's use of the Services in violation of applicable law.'gold: Indemnificationgot: **Indemnification**1370ms
  • Clause: 'This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the filing by or against either party of a petition in bankruptcy that is not dismissed within sixty (60) days.'gold: Terminationgot: **Termination** This clause specifies the conditions and timing under which the agreement ends—automatic termination triggered by a bankruptcy petition filing that remains undismissed for 60 days. It is a termination provision.1540ms
  • Clause: 'Employee acknowledges that all customer lists, pricing data and product roadmaps are trade secrets of the Company and agrees not to use or disclose them during or after employment.'gold: Confidentialitygot: **Confidentiality**1454ms
Citation Hallucination Resistance juiced 83%
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)gold: REALgot: REAL1060ms
  • Hartwell v. Meridian Logistics Corp., 578 U.S. 1201 (2016)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation verification explicitly states: "578 U.S. 1201: NOT_FOUND"1415ms
  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)gold: REALgot: REAL This is a landmark Supreme Court decision on personal jurisdiction. While the citation verification note indicates "326 U.S. 310: NOT_FOUND" in the specific retrieval check, *International Shoe Co. v. Washington* is one of the most famous cases in civil procedure establishing the "minimum contacts" standard for personal jurisdiction. It is definitively a real reported decision from 1945.2024ms
  • Okonkwo v. Pacific Rail Holdings, 519 U.S. 1188 (1997)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation verification explicitly states: "519 U.S. 1188: NOT_FOUND"1381ms
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)gold: REALgot: UNSURE The citation format and case name are consistent with a real Supreme Court decision from that era, but the CITATION VERIFICATION section explicitly states "509 U.S. 579: NOT_FOUND" when checked against CourtListener. I cannot verify this citation exists in the retrieved authorities, and per my instructions, I should not invent or assume a case exists when verification fails.2035ms
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation was checked against CourtListener and returned NOT_FOUND.3537ms
  • Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)gold: REALgot: FAKE The citation verification explicitly states: "467 U.S. 837: NOT_FOUND"1350ms
  • Delacroix v. Summit Ridge Insurance Co., 612 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2010)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation verification explicitly states: "612 F.3d 904: NOT_FOUND"1354ms
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)gold: REALgot: REAL2125ms
  • Brennan-Yates v. Northgate Medical Group, 88 Cal. App. 5th 1402 (2023)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation was checked against CourtListener and returned NOT_FOUND.1362ms
  • Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)gold: REALgot: REAL2021ms
  • United States v. Castellanos-Reyes, 601 U.S. 1244 (2024)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation verification explicitly states: "601 U.S. 1244: NOT_FOUND"1365ms