Precedent research

Start with the facts.

Describe the matter in plain English. Starry identifies the issues, searches the selected jurisdiction, and organizes the cases that support, weaken, or distinguish each part of your argument.

Request access See how it works →
✦ Starry Alarm service agreement Jurisdiction New York · Federal included
✓ Analyze› Read 0 of 14› ✓ Outline› Stress-test› Draft› Export
Cases

Read these first

5 of 14 cases
1
Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.

Lead authority on an alarm provider's duty and gross-negligence exception.

2
Kalisch-Jarcho v. City of New York

States the rule limiting contractual exculpation for gross negligence.

3
Abacus Federal Savings Bank v. ADT

Adverse authority enforcing a limitation clause absent gross negligence.

Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 540 (1992)

New York Court of Appeals

9.1/10 Good law

Found by Cases addressing whether a contractual service failure can constitute gross negligence.

Why this case: The court considered an alarm company's duties, an exculpatory clause, and conduct alleged to exceed ordinary negligence.

Matched passage: “Gross negligence, when invoked to pierce an agreed-upon limitation of liability in a commercial contract, must ‘smack of intentional wrongdoing.’”

How this case is used Supports gross negligence
How it works

From fact pattern to a research record.

Starry keeps the facts, cases, analysis, and work product together in one matter.

01

Describe the matter

Enter the facts, choose the represented party, and set the jurisdiction. Attach a brief, contract, or other matter document when it provides useful context.

02

Review the issues and cases

Starry organizes the question into legal issues and elements, then shows why each supporting or adverse case belongs in the analysis.

03

Build and verify the argument

Read the source passages, check treatment, refine the cases used for each element, and carry the work into an outline or draft.

Capabilities

A research workspace built around the matter.

Fact-pattern search

Start with a factual account rather than a search string. Results show the issue and retrieval intent that brought each case into the matter.

Authority by jurisdiction

Choose the state and whether to include federal courts. Court, date, citation, and authority signals stay visible while you review.

Supporting and adverse cases

See the cases that help, hurt, or distinguish each element in the same reading list and argument workspace.

Source and treatment checks

Open the matched opinion passage and review treatment status before deciding whether to rely on a case.

Argument outlines

Organize rules, applications, supporting authority, and counterarguments by issue and legal element.

Documents, drafting, and export

Keep matter documents and notes with the research, then carry the selected authority into an outline, draft, or research packet.

Why Starry

Research organized around the question you need to answer.

Traditional search workflow
  • Starts with terms, citations, and doctrinal language you already know.
  • Results must be sorted into issues, elements, and positions as you read.
  • Supporting authority, adverse authority, and treatment are reviewed in separate passes.
  • Notes, source passages, and outlines often live in different tools.
With Starry
  • Start with the complete factual account and the jurisdiction that governs it.
  • Each case is tied to an issue, an element, and a stated reason for its inclusion.
  • Supporting, adverse, and distinguishable cases appear in the same analysis.
  • Sources, notes, treatment checks, and the outline stay with the matter.
Access

See whether Starry fits your practice.

Starry is invitation only while we work closely with a small group of practitioners. Request access and tell us about the research work you handle.

Request access Log in
Not legal advice · Built for practitioners