On Thu, 18 May 1995, James Evans wrote:
> Regarding the wording of HR 1584, which would prohibit courts from
> requiring the use of copyrighted legal citations, I spoke with Rep.
> Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this morning for an article I'm writing about
> the bill, and he said the bill should read that no copyrighted legal
> citations system may be mandated unless there's no alternative. He said
> he would change the bill to reflect that position.
Now I am really confused. My first impression of this bill was that it
was designed get at the monopoly West holds on the citations to cases by
the nature West's copyright claim on the page number in judicial
citations. If that is the case, the language that prevents the requiring
of "legal citations in which copyright subsists" should do that.
Alternative means of citation like case name, date, paragraph, and line
number could be used. A little cleaning up of the convoluted sentence
structure of the original bill would have accomplished that.
But I am not sure what is meant by prohibiting the required use of a
"copyrighted legal citation system." What is meant by a legal citation
system? And how does that language better achieve the goal than
the wording that prohibits the required use of a "legal citation in
which a copyright subsists"?
I think I will use this bill as an assignment in my next legal writing
class. Where is the Plain English Police when you need them?
David A. Dye
Missouri Western State College
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST