Sample report
This is the report proofread.law returns for the short paragraph behind "sample with planted errors" in the checker. It was run through the default check, the one that uses no language model, and nothing below was edited by hand. Download the PDF record (5 KB).
The draft
Title VII forbids discrimination because of sexual orientation. Bostock v. Clayton County, 509 U.S. 6441 (2020). A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 6622, 678 (2009). Copyright protects only original expression, and "the sine qua non of copyright is originality". Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 3403, 345 (1991). The Court further explained that "facts are always protectable expression under the Copyright Act". Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 3404, 347 (1991). Facts are copyrightable when the author expended sweat of the brow in collecting them. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 3405, 352 (1991). The court held that "the airline was liable for all consequential damages flowing from the delay". Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., 925 F.3d 13396 (11th Cir. 2019). See also Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 4567 (2d Cir. 1997); Doe v. Roe, 2024 WL 1234568 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
The report
8 citations · 4 check this · 1 cannot verify (1 Westlaw/Lexis id) · 3 found
Register has Bostock v. Clayton County at 590 U.S. 644. Check the volume
In the register, 509 U.S. 644 is Shaw v. Reno. The case named in the document exists; this citation does not point to it.
Register: Bostock v. Clayton County (U.S. 2020) Register entry
Quoted language not in the opinion
Found: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (U.S. 1991). 2 of 5 content words were not found near the closest passage (always, protectable). Most often the sentence is another court's description of this case: cite that court '(quoting …)', or check the quotation against the opinion.
Register: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (U.S. 1991) Register entry
Not found in the register
No case at 925 F.3d 1339 in the register, and no case named Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. (2019) was found by name. The register holds this court's published opinions for that year, so a miss is a finding. Check the citation against the source.
Register holds a different case at this citation: Mary Santaella and Cary Eldridge v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1997)
No case named Smith v. Jones was found by name in the register. Check volume and page against the source.
Register: Mary Santaella and Cary Eldridge v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (7th Cir. 1997) Register entry
Westlaw/Lexis identifier. Open registers cannot resolve it
Verify on Westlaw or Lexis. On an AI-drafted document an unverifiable identifier is where invented authorities usually sit; on a lawyer-drafted one it is the normal way to cite an unpublished decision.
Found: Ashcroft v. Iqbal (U.S. 2009)
Register: Ashcroft v. Iqbal (U.S. 2009) Register entry
Found: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (U.S. 1991); quoted language present (verbatim)
Register: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (U.S. 1991) Register entry
Found: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (U.S. 1991)
Register: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (U.S. 1991) Register entry
Printed on every report
Checked against 10.1 M cases (CourtListener bulk data 2026-06-30, plus opinions filed through 2026-09-23); published federal appellate opinions from 2018 to 2026-09-20 are held for every circuit except the 2d Cir. (partly unverifiable); unpublished appellate opinions are not; Westlaw/Lexis identifiers are not resolvable; statutes, regulations and secondary sources are not checked. Whether a case is still good law (overruled or limited by a later court, reversed or vacated on appeal) is not checked: this is not a citator.
Nothing you submit is stored. The document is processed in memory and discarded when this report is returned; only counts (citations, tiers, timing) are logged, never text.
| in the paragraph | what is wrong | what the report says |
|---|---|---|
| Bostock v. Clayton County, 509 U.S. 644 (2020) | A real case at the wrong volume. Bostock is at 590 U.S. 644; 509 U.S. 644 is Shaw v. Reno. | Check this: the register has Bostock at 590 U.S. 644. |
| "facts are always protectable expression under the Copyright Act", cited to Feist at 347 | The words are not in Feist. | Check this: quoted language not in the opinion, with the words that are missing. |
| Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) | One of the citations in the Mata v. Avianca filing that the court found did not exist. | Check this: not found in the register, which holds the Eleventh Circuit's published opinions for 2019. |
| Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 1997) | A made-up name on a real volume and page. | Check this: the register holds a different case at that citation, and names it. |
| Doe v. Roe, 2024 WL 123456 | A Westlaw identifier. | Cannot verify: open registers cannot resolve Westlaw or Lexis ids. Look it up on Westlaw or Lexis. |
| Feist at 352, cited for "sweat of the brow" making facts copyrightable | Feist rejected that idea. The case is real and the citation is right; the sentence says the opposite of the opinion. | Found. The default check does not read the passage. The deep check asks whether the opinion says what the sentence says; it is opt-in and was not run for this page. |
The last row shows what the default check cannot see. It confirms that a case exists at the citation, that it is the case you named and that quoted words appear in it. Whether the case stands for your sentence takes the deep check, which reads the opinion and shows you the passage, or your own reading.
The coverage statement at the foot of the report is printed on every report, including the PDF record. It says what the register holds and what it does not check.