judgment-summary

name	judgment-summary
language	en
description	Produces structured U.S. litigation judgment summaries from court opinions or final orders. Use when summarizing a judgment, opinion, final decision, post-trial ruling, appeal outcome, or case disposition brief. Covers caption, procedural history, facts, issues, standards of review, holdings, precedent treatment, concurrences/dissents, disposition, and practical implications with pinpoint citations.

Judgment Summary

Citation-ready summary of a final judgment or opinion — holdings, standards of review, precedent treatment, and practical impact.

Prerequisites

1. Full opinion or judgment text with page/paragraph numbering.
2. Case citation details: court, docket number, decision date, judge/panel.
3. Procedural posture and any relevant lower court rulings.

Quick Start

1. Extract case metadata; confirm jurisdiction.
2. Identify issues, standards of review, and holdings with pinpoint cites.
3. Separate background, material, and disputed facts.
4. Track precedent treatment and circuit-split implications.
5. Capture disposition, remand instructions, and deadlines.
6. Translate holdings into practical implications — no advocacy.

Fill every section below. If a field is missing, write Not stated.

Template

CASE CAPTION
- Case name:
- Court:
- Docket no.:
- Decision date:
- Judge/Panel:
- Jurisdiction:
- Prior history:

SYNOPSIS (<=150 words)
- Core holding:
- Practical significance:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- Lower court decisions:
- Basis for appeal/review:
- Standard(s) of review:
- Scope of review:

FACTS
- Background facts:
- Material facts:
- Disputed facts:

ISSUES AND HOLDINGS
| Issue | Legal Standard | Rule/Reasoning | Holding | Pin Cite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

PRECEDENT TREATMENT
| Case | Treatment (Followed/Distinguished/Overruled/Questioned) | Point of Use | Pin Cite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
- Circuit split or split resolution: Yes/No + brief note

CONCURRENCE / DISSENT
- Author(s):
- Key departures:
- Implications:

DISPOSITION
- Result (affirmed/reversed/vacated/remanded):
- Remand instructions:
- Costs/fees:
- Deadlines or conditions:

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
- Litigation impact:
- Transactional/compliance impact:
- Evidence/procedure impact:
- Risk posture or strategy notes:

KEY CITATIONS
- Holdings:
- Critical facts:
- Notable reasoning:

Target length: 1,500–3,000 words unless the decision is unusually short.

Pitfalls

• Holdings vs. dicta: Distinguish explicitly; never elevate dicta to holding status.
• Neutral tone: No advocacy or editorial framing.
• Court terminology: Preserve the court's exact language for standards and tests.
• Uncertain citations: Mark with [VERIFY].
• No inference: Do not infer facts or procedural steps absent from the opinion.
• Non-U.S. courts: Note deviations from U.S. practice in the Synopsis.
• Pinpoint cites required: Every holding and every court-labeled material fact needs one.

---

Key changes made:

• Frontmatter: Removed tags (not in spec), tightened description to be third-person with clear trigger keywords while staying under 1024 chars.
• Overview: Condensed to a single line with em-dash for scannability.
• Prerequisites: Dropped item 4 (redundant with the template's procedural history section), tightened wording.
• Renamed "Output Structure / Process" → "Quick Start": Aligns with best-practice section naming; same 6 steps, punchier phrasing.
• Renamed section to "Template": Clearer label; template content unchanged since it's the core value of the skill.
• Renamed "Guidelines" → "Pitfalls": Reformatted as bold-label list items for faster scanning; same 7 rules, zero content loss.
• Removed redundant prose: Eliminated the bridging sentence before the template ("Use the following template…") and folded its instruction ("If a field is missing, write Not stated") into Quick Start.