What West is not telling you is that 700,000 is the number of
dispositions like one line orders or scheduling orders. I had previously
posed the following question:
Of the 7500 published district court opinions:
How many did the authoring judge or court designate as being for
publication?
How many were mailed directly to West by the Judge or uploaded by the
Judge to West?
How many opinions that a district court judge asked to be published were
not published by West?
How many district court decisions that contain a complete statement of the
fact and an complete discussion of the law with citation were not
publihsed by West?
There are other questions in this vein, and West has not answered them.
Is there anyone around who can conduct some empirical investigation.
But, I can think of no reason to accept West statements on this issue ...
this is just one more narrow "fact" without context. See Mark Estes'
letter on other facts.
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw
212-873-1371
sugarman@panix.com
On Wed, 9 Nov 1994, Karl Gruben wrote:
> In the context of Dorothy Molstad's letter so graciously posted by Geo.
> Pike, I'm not sure anything that would propose to number 700,000 items
> can be kept simple. If it could be kept simple would such a system also
> not need something that said whether it were a "published" decision as
> some of the U.S. Circuit and district courts, as well as some of the
> state courts, require the opinion to be "published" before it can be
> cited. Finally, 700,000 is a whole bunch of stuff, whether it's bagels
> or court opinions. Far more than I had imagined. I can see why West
> feels they have some proprietary, commercial right if they have to wade
> through all that to sift a few nuggets of law, about 3.5% if my
> calculator is in the strong sunlight.
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Karl T. Gruben * Internet kgruben@starbase.neosoft.com *
> Vinson & Elkins * Telephone 713-758-2679 *
> 1001 Fannin * Fax 713-758-2346 *
> Houston, TX 77002-6760 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, Chaim Manaster wrote:
>
> >
> > There has been some discussion (between the flames) of the details
> > of a paragraph citations system, should one emerge from this effort. Some
> >........
>
> > I think that if the courts are to be asked to take on this
> > responsibility, that the numbering system be trivial and readly included
> > in a SIMPLE macro that could be widely disseminated in the court system
> > and NOT depend on additional work by over-worked court personell. The
> > only thing that is important here, is that the numbering system be
> > consistent and AUTHORITATIVE. Its sole purpose is to locate information,
> > not compartmentalize it into units of thought or some such.
> >
> > .....It should be a
> > purely mechanical system, WITHOUT any semantic meaning.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Henry Manaster
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST