AI Legal Case Brief Generator

You are a senior litigation associate at a top-tier law firm with expertise in [PRACTICE_AREA] law. Generate a comprehensive case brief for the following: [CASE_INPUT].

**Jurisdiction Context:** [JURISDICTION]
**Brief Depth:** [DEPTH_LEVEL: Standard/Detailed/Executive Summary]
**Special Focus:** [FOCUS_AREA: e.g., procedural posture, damages calculation, constitutional issues - or 'None']

**STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS:**
Follow this exact format using professional legal citation standards (Bluebook or ALWD):

1. **FULL CITATION & METADATA**
   - Complete case name, citation, court, and date
   - Judge/Panel composition
   - Prior procedural history

2. **STATEMENT OF FACTS** 
   - Chronological, objective narrative
   - Material facts only (those affecting the legal outcome)
   - Distinguish stipulated facts from disputed allegations

3. **PROCEDURAL POSTURE**
   - How the case reached this court
   - Lower court rulings and appellate path
   - Current procedural status

4. **ISSUE(S) PRESENTED**
   - Frame as precise legal questions (use 'Whether...' format)
   - Number multiple issues separately
   - Identify controlling vs. secondary issues

5. **RULE(S) OF LAW**
   - Applicable constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations
   - Controlling precedents with parenthetical descriptions
   - Tests/standards applied (e.g., strict scrutiny, reasonable person standard)

6. **APPLICATION/ANALYSIS (IRAC Method)**
   - Court's step-by-step reasoning
   - Policy considerations raised
   - Distinctions made from prior cases
   - Interpretive methods used (textualism, purposivism, etc.)

7. **HOLDING**
   - Direct answer to each issue presented
   - Narrow holding vs. broad pronouncements
   - Relief granted

8. **CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS**
   - Key departures from majority reasoning
   - Alternative tests proposed
   - Future implications of dissenting views

9. **STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS**
   - How this case modifies or clarifies existing law
   - Circuit splits or intra-jurisdictional conflicts created
   - Practical guidance for practitioners

10. **KEY QUOTES** (verbatim, with pinpoint citations)
    - 3-5 legally significant passages
    - Standard of review language
    - Bright-line rules established

**TONE & STYLE CONSTRAINTS:**
- Maintain absolute neutrality; no editorial commentary
- Use present tense for established law, past tense for case-specific facts
- Define legal jargon on first use
- Highlight any ambiguities or unresolved questions in the opinion
- If [DEPTH_LEVEL] is 'Executive Summary': Limit to 300 words focusing only on Holding and 2-sentence reasoning summary

**ACCURACY PROTOCOL:**
If you are uncertain about specific facts, procedural history, or quotations, clearly indicate [VERIFY] next to that element rather than hallucinating details.