Sign in to BenchSlap

Built for attorneys who don't lose.
Citation verification & legal analysis for all 57 jurisdictions

Don't have an account? Create one

or

Letters, numbers, underscores only

We'll text you a verification code.

8+ characters required. Add uppercase, numbers, and symbols for stronger protection.

Have an invitation code?

Enter your email address and we'll send you a link to reset your password.

Try the Strategy Demo
What You Get

Four tools that change how you practice law.

Auditor

Their brief. Every flaw exposed.

Verification Engine
Defendant argues Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-812 permits partition of jointly held property upon showing of good cause...
This court acknowledged the principle in Adams v. Bown, 736 P.2d 1048 (Utah 1987), requiring clear and convincing evidence...
Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Because Plaintiff knew of the breach by May 2018, the fraud claim’s statute of limitations was simultaneously triggered. See Smith v. Jones, 452 P.3d 111 (Utah 2019).
See also State v. Blackwood, 211 P.3d 44 (Utah 2021) (dismissing identical claims on statute of limitations grounds).
Logical Inversion Detected Smith v. Jones explicitly held the opposite: “Knowledge of a breach of contract does NOT trigger the statute of limitations for fraud unless the underlying deceptive act was concurrently discovered.” (Id. at 115). Opposing counsel is using a valid citation to argue a false premise.
Fabricated Citation State v. Blackwood, 211 P.3d 44 (Utah 2021) — this case does not exist in any reporter. Filing this is a Rule 11 violation.
Upload their brief. Push a button. Every logical fallacy, fabricated case, and misquoted holding — found before the judge does.
1Fabricated
2Superseded
1Logic Inverted
4Unsupported
Discovery Engine

Every deadline. Every disclosure. Every case.

459 Rules Tracked
Reyes v. OmniCorp
Davis v. Horizon Medical
In re: Thompson Estate
Park v. Mountain West
Your Disclosures
COMPLETE
Their Disclosures
OVERDUE — 49 days
Expert Disclosures
Due in 22 days
Discrepancy Detected Their financial disclosure (Bates HOR-00441) lists only Wells Fargo. Their 2022 tax returns (Bates HOR-00982) show 1099-INT income from Chase and First Republic. Two undisclosed accounts.
Generate Targeted RFPs
It cross-references their filings against their own documents — and catches what they tried to hide.
4Cases
14Deadlines
1Overdue
2Discrepancies
Consigliere

Set the strategy. Execute the plan.

Case Counselor
72 /100
FAVORABLE
Defensive Neutral Aggressive
Tactical Shift Opposing counsel (M. Sterling) has a documented history across 14 similar cases of settling immediately after Daubert motions on expert damages. File a preemptive Daubert challenge against Dr. Vance’s methodology, followed by a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to trigger cost-shifting. Projected case strength: 72 → 84.
Draft Daubert Motion
HIGH7 days
Rule 68 Offer of Judgment
MED14 days
It doesn’t just analyze your case — it profiles opposing counsel and tells you exactly how to beat them.
72Strength
+12Projected
14OC Cases Analyzed
2Actions Ready
Drafter

One click. Court-ready.

Every Citation Verified
Document
Motion to Compel ESI
Court
Utah — Third District
Case
Rostova v. Apex Industrial
Generate
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

ELENA ROSTOVA, Plaintiff,
v.
APEX INDUSTRIAL LLC, Defendant.

Case No. 230904412  |  Judge Robert Faust
Motion to Compel Production of Electronically Stored Information
I. Relief Requested

Plaintiff moves this Court for an order compelling Defendant to produce internal Slack and Microsoft Teams communications pursuant to Utah R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and 37(a)(3)(B).

II. Statement of Discovery Dispute

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Production seeking all internal communications regarding Project Meridian. Defendant objected on proportionality grounds without conducting a reasonable inquiry into the burden of production...

It drafts. It verifies every citation. It formats for your specific court. You file.
4.2sGenerated
12/12Citations Verified
0Hallucinations
Rule 26Compliant
Strategy Demo

Describe a case. Get a verdict.

Case strength scoring, outcome prediction, and the critical vulnerability you almost missed. No account required.

Example: Employment Discrimination (ADEA)
Tolling Exception Gap
The ADEA requires a charge with the EEOC within 180 days (or 300 in deferral states). If the client has not yet filed, timing is critical and may already be compromised.
Mixed-Motive Vulnerability
Budget constraints may have been a genuine concurrent factor. Under Gross, ADEA requires but-for causation — a higher bar than mixed-motive Title VII claims.
Settlement Landscape
ADEA cases with this pattern of statistical evidence settle in the mid-six figures 60-70% of the time. Courts are increasingly receptive to disparate impact evidence in RIF contexts.
Load-Bearing Element
The entire case rests on the inference chain: VP comments + termination timing + replacement pattern = discriminatory intent. If any link weakens, the structure collapses.
CRITICAL VULNERABILITY
Replacement Hire Timing
The two junior engineers hired the following month may have been planned before the RIF. If defendant can produce a requisition dated before the termination decision, the “replacement” inference collapses — they become parallel hires, not replacements.
Without this evidence, the strongest argument (pretext via replacement) becomes the weakest. Discovery must target hire requisition dates immediately.
74Strength
Strong Case
Legal Merit
82
Factual Support
70
Procedure
78
Evidence
64
Best Case
75%
Full damages + back pay. Pattern evidence compels settlement or favorable verdict.
Likely
55%
Partial settlement. Strong enough case to survive summary judgment and force negotiation.
Worst Case
15%
Summary judgment for defendant if evidence gaps in direct intent prove fatal.
Executive Brief

The but-for causation standard under Gross is the hidden fulcrum of this case. While the statistical pattern is compelling, the defense need only establish one plausible non-discriminatory reason to shift the narrative. Discovery should target the VP’s decision-making process, not just the outcome.

Cases with this fact pattern settle 60-70% of the time in the mid-six figures. The judicial landscape favors early, aggressive motion practice to establish the statistical evidence before the defense can fragment the narrative through individual-capacity arguments.

The inferential chain is structurally sound but has one critical dependency: the replacement hire timing. If the requisitions predate the RIF decision, the entire structure needs re-engineering around the VP’s statements alone — which is circumstantial but survivable.

Case strength scoring, outcome prediction, and vulnerability detection. Now try it with your case.
0 / 3,000 words
Intake Analyzing Scoring Vulnerabilities Verdict Brief
Analyzing case...