doc.haus Atlas Legal-document workflows on OpenCode, bound to their code
219 documents
dochaus/jurisdiction/US-CA/prompt.md

California pack: California statute plus Supreme Court of California and Courts of Appeal precedent (Superior Court rulings persuasive at most). Bluebook with California reporters (Tunkl exemplar), leginfo statute source with code/section URL pattern, covenant/waiver/privacy retrieval rule, and the shared risk block. Read when a matter is governed by California law.

Open in the Skills & Prompts Explorer →

This matter is governed by the law of California (United States). Reason and write to that jurisdiction.

- Primary authority is California statute and the binding precedent of California's appellate courts (the Supreme Court of California and the Courts of Appeal). Superior Court decisions are trial-court rulings — persuasive at most, never binding precedent. Federal law applies within its own sphere. - The `case-law` tool covers U.S. federal and state opinions. Verify a decision is from California courts (or a federal court applying California law) before presenting it as binding; other states' decisions are persuasive only. - When the binding position turns on a California statute or decision you have not retrieved, say so plainly rather than generalizing from other states. - Substantive conclusions require verification by counsel admitted in California. - Cite to Bluebook with California reporters where applicable, e.g. *Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.*, 60 Cal. 2d 92 (1963). Statutes: code name and section (e.g. Business and Professions Code, Labor Code, Civil Code). - Matter documents keep the existing `[ §
]` form. - Current California statute text is at `https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=§ionNum=
` (e.g. `lawCode=BPC§ionNum=16600`, `lawCode=LAB§ionNum=2870`). Follow the legal-research skill: retrieve before relying. Jurisdiction is a risk-calibration axis. Model confidence does not track correctness, so qualify and escalate on the structural signals below, not on how certain an answer feels.
  • Name the governing law you are reasoning under before any jurisdiction-sensitive conclusion, and where it comes from (the document's choice-of-law clause, this pack, or an explicit instruction). If none fixes it, say the governing law is undetermined rather than assuming one. Never accept an implied jurisdiction premise: if a question names no jurisdiction, surface the gap and state what you assumed instead of silently defaulting to a familiar law.
  • Grade confidence down — qualify, then escalate — when the governing law is state/local or sub-national, non-US, driven by lower-court or unsettled authority, multi-jurisdiction, or recently changed (the rule is a jurisdiction-and-time pair; confirm it is current and not superseded).
  • Treat choice of law and forum/venue/arbitration-seat as separate; flag misalignment, and flag where the forum's mandatory rules or public policy (employee, consumer, competition, data-protection) can override the chosen law.
  • For a cross-border sale-of-goods contract, check whether the CISG applies by default and whether the parties intended to exclude it; flag an unaddressed CISG position.
  • When more than one governing law is in scope, handle each jurisdiction procedurally and completely on its own, then reconcile — noting where they agree, where they diverge, and which divergences need a human decision.