Gregg, I think I understand what a virtual page is. A good example might
be Lexis pages ... a result of a long debate within the company and they
decided to pick virtual pages of 1000 characters (I think that is the
length) ... now, they are pushing hard for paragrah numbering.
Your example of US Reports pages as virtual pages is not using your own
definition since these are indeed physical pages and, indeed, illustrate
another practical real world issue. Take the recent Supreme Court
opinion United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. decided November 29,
1994, and disseminated through the Internet in electonic form with the
slip opinion page numbers, the for now official cite of the Court.
The fact is that Supreme Court Reporter, the West publication, does not
contain star pagination to the slip pagination, and, will not, until 1997
contain the official United States Reports pagination because that it how
long it will take for those to appear. Now, for sure, X-Citement Video is
going to be cited in many other opinions and law review articles during
that three year period, all without the slip pagination, without the US
Reports pagination, and with the Supreme Court Reporter pagination. If
one writes a comment on X-Citement today, and wishes to refer to the 8th
pagragraph of the Chief Justices opinion, what are the choices,
especially if one expects or hopes that it may be read by someone 4 years
hence?
It would seem to me most effective were the Supreme Court to assign
official paragraph numbers to their slip opinions, which would serve as a
pin-point citation on a permanent basis (my review of 1990 term opinions
shows not one example of a paragraph added between the slip opinoon and
the official US Reports version ... not including attorney name
listings). Thus, an opinion citing X-Citement next week could refer to
paragraph 8 and that would be a valid pin-point citation ten years hence,
and, would indeed be in the versions flying around the Internet.
I would also like to comment on the following line of argument:
> And that's my main point: by making it easier for everybody to track such
> changes, we will be making a fundamental change in the way judicial opinions
> are read and used. "Judicial history" will become an issue.
>
> The discussion is therefore not about making a ministerial change in the
> citation system; it is not about freeing ourselves from chains to paper or to
> West; it is not about levelling the playing field for new publishers--it is
> about changing the way stare decisis works in the American legal system. And
> that is not something that you, or I, or even John Lederer have been
> empowered to do.
I think your statement that paragraph numbering is "about changing the way
stare decisis works in the American legal system" is based upon
hypothetical postulations with no foundation. It is a mere statement of
opinion, theoretical at best and requiring strained reasoning even to
construct an argument. I hear the conclusion ... I just think to reach
the conclusion, one must assemble an amalgam of fears, out-of-context
references, beliefs, and debating team logic. I am sorry, Greg, I just
do not think that anyone is going to misinterpret Rhenquist's opinon in
X-Citement were paragraph numbers to be inserted in the margins. Indeed,
I believe that an argument could be better made that analysis and comment
on new Supreme Court opinions would be assisted were there an official
paragraph number at the source.
I could just as easily say that the present system of private vendor
dominated paging is threatening how "stare decisis works in the American
legal system". I could say yes, you could say no, But, argument
requires more than stating a conclusion and working backward.
I have tried to illustrate my arguments with numerous factual and
practical problems with the present situation which I think I can show
imposes numerous costs -- money and time -- on all connected with the
legal system. In the end, the present form of pin-point pagination can
be shown to be inefficient in a macro-economic sense. I do not even want
to count the hours I spent as a young associate finding parallel
pin-point citations before polishing off a brief ... a complete waste of
time. Balanced against argumentative hypotheses, I will go with the
practical.
Alan Sugarman
sugarman@panix.com
HyperLaw
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST