Calculator Methodology
How the Case Value Calculator turns a described dispute into a probability-weighted damages range — the model, the categories it covers, and the standard every cited case has to clear before it's allowed to ground a result. This is a separate document from the tracker's coverage methodology, which explains what makes it into the litigation tracker itself.
What this is — and isn't
The Case Value Calculator is a structured, rules-based expected-value model: probability of success × damages, summed across every claim identified in your matter, presented as a range rather than a single figure. It is deliberately not a black-box statistical prediction from a licensed litigation-analytics platform, and not a substitute for judicial or arbitral resolution of an actual dispute. Every probability range and every damages range traces back to either a specific, documented legal rule or a real, cited comparable case — never an unexplained number.
How an estimate gets built
Three inputs go into every result. First, the facts of your matter — extracted by AI from your own description and any documents you provide, never assumed or filled in. Second, the governing legal framework for your dispute's category and claim type — a documented probability range keyed to the actual legal standard (for example, unpaid rent on a written lease starts from a 90–97% probability range because an undisputed debt is close to open-and-shut, while a tenant's wrongful-lockout claim is driven almost entirely by whether the state allows a landlord to use self-help eviction at all). Third, real, verified comparable cases — actual settlements, judgments, and rulings with their real dollar outcomes, cited directly alongside the range they inform.
Categories & claim types covered
The calculator currently models eight practice areas, each broken into the specific claim types a matter in that category might involve: landlord-tenant lease disputes (unpaid rent, accelerated rent, holdover damages, attorney's fees, property damage, wrongful lockout, quiet enjoyment/repair breaches, security deposits), lending & foreclosure (deficiency judgments, receivership, guaranty enforcement, lender-liability claims), REIT & securities (10b-5 securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, proxy disclosure, merger objections), construction defect (contractor negligence, design-professional malpractice, indemnification, insurance coverage), environmental (CERCLA cost recovery and contribution, consent decrees, insurance coverage), eminent domain (just-compensation valuation, quick-take challenges, access disputes, regulatory takings), zoning & land use (variance/permit appeals, spot-zoning challenges, Section 1983 claims, development-agreement breaches), and premises liability (slip-and-fall/hazardous-condition injuries, inadequate/negligent security against third-party crime, structural or maintenance failures, failure to warn). There's no category dropdown to pick from — describe your matter (and attach any documents) and the calculator classifies which practice area and claim types apply.
The citation-verification standard
Every case cited in a result has to clear the same bar the litigation tracker itself uses: found through real research, then independently confirmed against an actual source — a court opinion, a docket, or a detailed secondary account from a source we've actually read in full — before it's ever allowed to ground a number. A citation's confidence is shown alongside it: high means it was verified against a primary source (the opinion itself, a government filing, a docket); medium means it rests on a detailed secondary source rather than the primary text. We do not publish a "low confidence" tier — a case that can't clear at least medium confidence is left out entirely rather than shown with a caveat. No dollar amount, outcome, or holding is ever invented or estimated to fill a gap in what a source actually states.
Ongoing expansion
The citation database behind this tool grows daily through an ongoing, automated research process that rotates through every claim type, applying the exact same verification standard described above before anything is added. It is a genuinely different research stream from the litigation tracker's own daily coverage — the tracker curates notable, reader-relevant matters; this research pulls every real, citable case it can verify for each claim type, prioritizing completeness for the model over newsworthiness for a reader.
How to read a result
A result is always shown as a range, never a single number, because the underlying uncertainty is real — the probability range reflects how contested that type of claim typically is, and the damages range reflects the real spread across comparable outcomes. Where the tool can compute a best-guess point estimate from your specific facts, it shows that alongside the full range, not instead of it. Claims are broken out individually so you can see exactly which parts of your matter are driving the total, and every citation is a real, clickable link to its actual source — nothing here is provided for you to take on faith.
Every result also shows a case-law coverage badge for its category — strong, developing, or limited — based on how many independently verified real citations currently back that category. This is deliberately separate from a single citation's own high/medium confidence rating: a category can have several well-verified citations and still be a "limited coverage" category overall if that's all that exists yet. We'd rather a thinly-supported category look thin than have every result look equally authoritative regardless of how much real case law actually stands behind it.
Curious what this looks like applied to a real, already-decided case? See our worked examples → Curious what a genuine, dated prediction looks like on a matter that hasn't resolved yet? See our prediction registry →
Limitations
This tool does not provide legal advice, does not predict the outcome of any specific matter, and is not a substitute for consulting qualified counsel about your actual facts and jurisdiction. Litigation outcomes depend on evidence, procedural posture, the specific judge or arbitrator, and advocacy that no calculator can capture. The underlying model is still being actively refined as more verified case data is incorporated — treat every range as an informed, transparent estimate, not a finished or stable prediction. See our Terms of Service for the governing disclaimers.
See a sample result
The Case Value Calculator page shows a full worked example, with real cited case law, before you enter a single fact of your own.