I have received five requests to repost this message, because, the prior=20
message included text codes which made it unreadable. Alan Sugarman. =20
Sorry for the excess bandwidth.
REPOST FOLLOWS IN FULL
To: Multiple recipients of list <law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: McKeever Notesof Tap a few comments.
On Wed, 2 Nov 1994 mckeever@lawmail.law.columbia.edu wrote:
> Taxpayers' Assets Project (TAP) meetings on legal citation, Oct 19th, 199=
4
>
> Notes by Kent McKeever, Columbia University Law School Library
I have a few additional pieces of information to supplement Kent
McKeever's comprehensive memorandum which sounded very much like the
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 only
> about 15% of the courts in the USA required West products.
> Sugarman later disputed the validity of that study, citing inaccuracies
> in the reporting of the situation in New York.
The governing rules and regulations are found in the New
York Civil Practice Law and Regulationsm, the bible for
practice before the New York States. Rule 5529(e) provides:
Citations of decisions. New York decisions shall be
cited from the official reports, if any. All other
decisions shall be cited from the official reports, if
any, and also from the National Reporter System if they
are there reported. Decisions not reported officially
or in the National Reporter System shall be cited from
the most available source.
=FC2. 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 should
> require the vendor to have essential data with official internal
> numbering. He also felt that West had been misleading people about
> the number of decisions each year. They use a figure of 700,000 and
> imply that they print only the 10 - 12,000 worthwhile ones each year.
> Sugarman thinks that there are only 10 - 12,000 substantive written
> decisions each year (Presumably because so many cases have no written
> decisions).
The references are only to decisions of the United States district
courts. I was responding to comments made by West at the morning and
afternoon sessions that asserted that West exercised editorial selection
in choosing which decisions to publish from the 700,000 district court
"dispositions" each year. However, most district court judges specify
which decisions to publish and even mail their decisions to West. In
other situations, it is readily apparent that a "disposition" is to be
publihsed because it recites the facts in full and recites the law. Is
anyone aware of any study, say of even one district court, which anaylzes
what occurs. Why is this important to West: because absent some
meaningful selection, West would have no basis for a compilation
copyright (apart from added editorial digest, etc.).
3. The West-Whetstone Paragraphing Rules.
There was also discussion in the meeting or rules for numbering
paragraphs in legal opinions, prepared by Michael Whestone of West and
sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The are thoughtful and well done,
and, in my view, indicates that West understand that this is the best way
to go. Lexis at the meeting agreed that they were a good set of rules
which they would support, and the other publihsers that had indicated
support of parargraph also believe that these were a workable set of
rules. I insert them here as they appeared in a letter from Whetstone
. I have added one further suggestion:
=20
HyperLaw Item 9.
The paragraph number should be tagged or surrounded with <>=20
(generally used in SGML) or anything else that
is never found in standard text (thus, brackets
would not work, since they are used in citations. The paragraph
symbol might also be found in a quotation from a statute of other
document. Obviously, superscripts do not work.) The idea is to
have something that it uniquely locatable in the electronic
environment. Non-electronic versions of the text could omit the symbols
and may show the number as a superscript.
************************************************
Excerpt from page 5 of letter dated April 28, 1994. from Michael J.
Whetstone of West Publishing Co., Editorial Counsel, to Honorable Daniel
P. Anderson, Presiding Judge, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Second
District.
************** Begin Whetstone Test ******************************
1. The Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals should number the
opinion paragraphs, not an outside source. As a result the numbering
will be consistent.
2. Number each paragraph beginning with the text of the opinion, but
do not number the title, appeal line or attorney's names.
3. Subindented quoted matter should not be separately numbered but
should be considered a portion of the greater paragraph in which it is
contained. This differs from the approach in the Anderson Opinion.
4. Footnotes should not be numbered separately for reasons similar to
3 above.
5. The mandate and judges lines at the end of the opinion can be
separately numbered.
6. Concurring and dissenting opinions need special attention. We
recommend they be numbered consecutively and be treated as a portion of
the entire case. We do understand they are separate opinions, but
confusion may result with the multiple paragraphs containing the same
number.
7. Appendices and Exhibits should not be numbered but should be
continued to be referred to as App. A, Ex. 1, and the like.
8. Insertions also require special attention. It is not unusual
after an opinion is filed that changes are made, including adding
paragraphs. Rather than renumbering all paragraphs to accommodate such
a change, we suggest that insertions be accommodated through separate
numbering such as Para. 3.1, Para. 3a, or the like. Renumbering would
likely result in slip, advance sheet and bound volume paragraphs being
numbered differently, confusing as to which paragraph was being changed,
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