Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

LexisNexis Academic Tutorials: How to Shepardize® a Legal Case

Step-by-step guides and tutorials for key features of the LexisNexis Academic database.

IS YOUR CASE STILL GOOD LAW? - HOW TO SHEPARDIZE® A LEGAL CASE

Use the Shepardize® option in LexisNexis Academic to see if a court ruling is still good legal precedent.

Start by finding a case and viewing the full document.  Then follow these steps:

 

(1) Click on the Next Steps pull-down menu in the upper-right side of the screen.

Use the Shepardize® option in LexisNexis Academic to see if a court ruling is still good legal precedent.  Start by finding a case and viewing the full document.  Then follow these steps:    (1) Click on the Next Steps pull-down menu in the upper-right side of the screen

  

(2) Select Shepardize® and click on the blue Go button.

Select Shepardize® and click on the blue Go button.

 

(3) Click on the Restrict By pull-down menu and select All Negative.

Click on the Restrict By pull-down menu and select All Negative.

 

(4) Scroll down to CITING DECISIONS, looking for the phrases listed below:

  • Overruled by: Sets a precedent that the original ruling is no longer to be considered valid law.
     
  • Criticized by: Disagrees with the original ruling, but the court lacks authority to overrule it.
     
  • Distinguished by: Argues that a ruling is valid precedent under one set of facts but not another.
     
  • Limited by: Sets a precedent that a prior ruling applies only in specific, limited circumstances.
     
  • Questioned by: Questions whether a prior ruling is still valid precedent, but does not overrule it.


Scroll down to CITING DECISIONS, looking for the phrases listed below:  Overruled by: Sets a precedent that the original ruling is no longer to be considered valid law.  Criticized by: Disagrees with the original ruling, but the court lacks authority to overrule it.  Distinguished by: Argues that a ruling is valid precedent under one set of facts but not another.  Limited by: Sets a precedent that a prior ruling applies only in specific, limited circumstances.  Questioned by: Questions whether a prior ruling is still valid precedent, but does not overrule it.

 

  

(5) To read the relevant section of a citing case, click on the page number for each citation.
 

To read the relevant section of a citing case, click on the page number for each citation.

 

(6) Then slowly scroll through the full text to find a highlighted citation to your original case.

Then slowly scroll through the full text to find a highlighted citation to your original case.

 

 

<< PREVIOUS GUIDE NEXT GUIDE >>