Skip to content
Looplex Docs

Looplex Caselaw - A Comprehensive Repository for Court Rulings

Looplex Caselaw is a state-of-the-art repository of court rulings designed to enhance legal research, streamline case analysis in your organization, and facilitate the application of precedents.

Indexed by Essential Case Information

Legal professionals can navigate the repository with ease, as Looplex Caselaw meticulously indexes all court rulings to ensure efficient retrieval and comprehensive analysis. Each entry includes essential case information, such as the case number in CNJ format, the adjudicating court, the reporting judge, the date the ruling was issued, and the date it was officially published, among others.

Curated Headnotes

A standout feature of Looplex Caselaw is its curated headnotes. These summaries, created either by Looplex AI or by our team of legal knowledge engineers, provide a succinct overview of the facts, legal issues, and the court’s decision.

Looplex employs advanced natural language processing and machine learning to extract key points and legal reasoning, while our experts ensure accuracy and adherence to the structured format prescribed by the CNJ guidelines, including “Recomendação CNJ nº 154/2024”. This combination of technology and human expertise ensures that the headnotes are not only precise but also aligned with the best practices for judicial decision summaries.

Indexed by Areas of Practice and Keywords

To make legal research even more accessible, all rulings in Looplex Caselaw are categorized by relevant areas of practice and indexed with pertinent keywords. This organizational structure allows users to locate rulings based on thematic and substantive legal issues, such as labor law, administrative law, or commercial law, ensuring that the repository meets diverse research needs.

Curated Collections

Looplex Caselaw also offers various curated collections to tailor the experience to specific user needs.

The repository includes all court rulings associated with the organization’s cases entered into the Looplex Cases module, allowing law firms or corporate legal departments to maintain a comprehensive record of their own litigation history. Additionally, organizations can curate their own repositories of significant rulings relevant to their practice areas. The platform also features collections curated and organized by judiciary bodies, providing access to authoritative selections of precedents.

In the near future, Looplex will introduce expert-curated collections, where our legal specialists will organize rulings on cutting-edge issues and landmark cases in specific legal fields.

Case Law Classifications

In the Looplex Caselaw repository, we adopt a classification system divided into five main categories, designed to facilitate the location, analysis, and comparison of consolidated understandings across various judicial bodies.

1. Rulings

The “Rulings” category forms the most comprehensive foundation of our system. This includes all judicial decisions, regardless of the jurisdiction level or their decisional nature. It encompasses:

  • Appeal Decisions (Acórdãos): Collegiate decisions issued by appellate courts or higher courts, representing the consolidated understanding of a group of judges.

  • Judgments (Sentenças): First-instance decisions rendered by individual judges that resolve the merits of a case or conclude a procedural stage.

  • Single-Judge Decisions (Decisões Monocráticas): Pronouncements by individual appellate judges or justices that can adjudicate appeals or incidental matters without submitting the case to a panel.

  • Significant Interlocutory Orders: Rulings that, while not concluding the case, significantly influence its progress or outcomes, impacting the final decision.

This category serves as the broadest entry point for more general research, offering a panoramic view of case law production. You can also filter rulings by the economic activity of the parties involved, such as cases involving financial institutions or telecommunications companies.

2. Precedents

In the Brazilian legal system, some rulings gain binding force or broader interpretive influence, guiding the application of law in similar cases. Under the “Precedents” category, we group:

  • Repetitive Appeals (Recursos Repetitivos): Judgments of representative appeals that establish binding legal theses for lower courts.

  • Resolution of Repetitive Demand Incidents (IRDR): A procedure for resolving repetitive legal controversies across multiple cases, producing a uniform thesis.

  • Competence Assumption Incidents (IAC): Cases with significant social impact or legal importance that are referred to higher courts to unify legal interpretation.

  • Requests for Uniform Interpretation of Law (PUIL): Mechanisms to establish uniform understanding of legal issues in the context of Special Civil Courts or the National Panel for Uniformization.

3. Controversies and Stay Orders

Before becoming precedents, many legal issues go through a phase of analysis, identification, and organization by courts. These involve topics that may later generate binding theses but, while awaiting judgment, can suspend (stay) cases with identical subject matter. This category includes:

  • Controversies: Legal questions pending clear resolution by higher courts.

  • Stay Orders: Cases stayed while awaiting decisions on issues assigned to higher courts or the National Panel for Uniformization (TNU).

4. Summaries (Súmulas)

Summaries are statements that encapsulate the consolidated understanding of courts on specific matters, serving as a reference for the application of law. Although they lack the same binding authority as qualified precedents, summaries exert significant influence on judicial orientation by reflecting a court’s reiterated stance on particular topics. This allows users to quickly identify the judiciary’s position on contentious issues and devise more precise procedural strategies.

5. Admissibility Filters

Finally, the “Admissibility Filters” category includes mechanisms designed to select the most relevant issues for review by higher courts. This category includes:

  • General Repercussion (STF): A constitutional requirement that conditions the review of Extraordinary Appeals on demonstrating the broader relevance and significance of the issue beyond the interests of the parties.

  • Federal Issue Relevance (STJ): A mechanism still pending regulation, aimed at selecting the most significant Special Appeals from a federal perspective.

  • Equivalent Filter at the TST: A similar device applicable within the labor justice system.

By integrating advanced AI capabilities with expert curation from legal knowledge engineers, Looplex Caselaw empowers legal professionals to conduct efficient legal research, make strategic decisions, and confidently apply judicial precedents in a consistent, clear, and actionable manner.