On Wed, 2 Nov 1994 mckeever@lawmail.law.columbia.edu wrote:
> Taxpayers' Assets Project (TAP) meetings on legal citation, Oct 19th, 199=
4
>=20
> Notes by Kent McKeever, Columbia University Law School Library
I have a few additional pieces of information to supplement Kent=20
McKeever's comprehensive memorandum which sounded very much like the=20
meetings that I attended on October 19, 1994
1. Court Citation Requiments:
Mckeever states at one point:
> This led to some discussion as to which courts required what, and =
what
> the Bluebook required. West cited a Berring study which found onl=
y
> about 15% of the courts in the USA required West products.=20
> Sugarman later disputed the validity of that study, citing inaccur=
acies
> in the reporting of the situation in New York.
The governing rules and regulations are found in the New=20
York Civil Practice Law and Regulationsm, the =93bible=94 for=20
practice before the New York States. Rule 5529(e) provides:
Citations of decisions. New York decisions shall be=20
cited from the official reports, if any. All other=20
decisions shall be cited from the official reports, if=20
any, and also from the National Reporter System if they=20
are there reported. Decisions not reported officially=20
or in the National Reporter System shall be cited from=20
the most available source.
2. Comment re the 700,000 decisions:
> Alan Sugarman of Hypertext pointed out he couldn't compete for the
> DOJ RFP because of the pinpoint cites issue. He felt the RFP shou=
ld
> require the vendor to have essential data with official internal
> numbering. He also felt that West had been misleading people abou=
t
> the number of decisions each year. They use a figure of 700,000 a=
nd
> imply that they print only the 10 - 12,000 worthwhile ones each ye=
ar.=20
> Sugarman thinks that there are only 10 - 12,000 substantive writte=
n
> decisions each year (Presumably because so many cases have no writ=
ten
> decisions).
The references are only to decisions of the United States district=20
courts. I was responding to comments made by West at the morning and=20
afternoon sessions that asserted that West exercised editorial selection=20
in choosing which decisions to publish from the 700,000 district court=20
"dispositions" each year. However, most district court judges specify=20
which decisions to publish and even mail their decisions to West. In=20
other situations, it is readily apparent that a "disposition" is to be=20
publihsed because it recites the facts in full and recites the law. Is=20
anyone aware of any study, say of even one district court, which anaylzes=
=20
what occurs. Why is this important to West: because absent some=20
meaningful selection, West would have no basis for a compilation=20
copyright (apart from added editorial digest, etc.).
3. The West-Whetstone Paragraphing Rules.
There was also discussion in the meeting or rules for numbering=20
paragraphs in legal opinions, prepared by Michael Whestone of West and=20
sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The are thoughtful and well done,=20
and, in my view, indicates that West understand that this is the best way=
=20
to go. Lexis at the meeting agreed that they were a good set of rules=20
which they would support, and the other publihsers that had indicated=20
support of parargraph also believe that these were a workable set of=20
rules. I insert them here as they appeared in a letter from Whetstone=20
.. I have added one further suggestion:
=20
HyperLaw Item 9.=20
=20
The paragraph number should be tagged or surrounded with <> (generally=20
used in SGML> or=20
anything else that is never found in standard text (thus, brackets=20
would not work, since they are used in citations. The paragraph=20
symbol might also be found in a quotation from a statute of other=20
document. Obviously, superscripts do not work.) The idea is to=20
have something that it uniquely locatable in the electronic=20
environment. Non-electronic versions of the text could omit the symbols=20
and may show the number as a superscript.
=20
************************************************
Excerpt from page 5 of letter dated April 28, 1994. from Michael J.=20
Whetstone of West Publishing Co., Editorial Counsel, to Honorable Daniel=20
P. Anderson, Presiding Judge, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Second=20
District.=20
************** Begin Whetstone Test ******************************
=20
1.=09The Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals should number the=20
opinion paragraphs, not an outside source. As a result the numbering=20
will be consistent.=20
=20
2.=09Number each paragraph beginning with the text of the opinion, but=20
do not number the title, appeal line or attorney's names.=20
=20
3.=09Subindented quoted matter should not be separately numbered but=20
should be considered a portion of the greater paragraph in which it is=20
contained. This differs from the approach in the Anderson Opinion.=20
=20
4.=09Footnotes should not be numbered separately for reasons similar to=20
3 above.=20
=20
5.=09The mandate and judges lines at the end of the opinion can be=20
separately numbered.=20
=20
6.=09Concurring and dissenting opinions need special attention. We=20
recommend they be numbered consecutively and be treated as a portion of=20
the entire case. We do understand they are separate opinions, but=20
confusion may result with the multiple paragraphs containing the same=20
number.=20
=20
7.=09Appendices and Exhibits should not be numbered but should be=20
continued to be referred to as App. A, Ex. 1, and the like.=20
=20
8.=09Insertions also require special attention. It is not unusual=20
after an opinion is filed that changes are made, including adding=20
paragraphs. Rather than renumbering all paragraphs to accommodate such=20
a change, we suggest that insertions be accommodated through separate=20
numbering such as Para. 3.1, Para. 3a, or the like. Renumbering would=20
likely result in slip, advance sheet and bound volume paragraphs being=20
numbered differently, confusing as to which paragraph was being changed,=20
and it would be confusing for readers and publishers.
**************** End of Whetstone Text *******************
Alan D. Sugarman
HyperLaw, Inc.
sugarman@panix.com
212-873-1371
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST