In the course of the discussions about vendor-neutral case citations,
somebody suggested identifying the publisher in the cite, similar to the
present Bluebook format for statutes (for states like NY that don't have an
official code). Discussion centered around the purpose of this, which was
identified as allowing cross-checks against publisher typos.
I haven't checked the Bluebook legislative history (if there is such a
thing), but I assume that the requirement in statute cites stems from a
different concern: you have to identify the publisher of the code to give
meaning to the dates that follow, which are based on that publisher's bound
volume and pocket part publication dates. And the reason for requiring both
is to pin down the particular version of the statute that was cited, since
the statute may have been amended before and after the time of the cite.
That got me to thinking: why not have vendor-neutral and technology-neutral
statute cites too? Everything else about a statute cite is already -neutral
(the code titles and sections are part of the enactment).
Citing to the publication date of a bound volume doesn't work for on-line
statute research. And citing to the official USC has never been easy for the
vast majority of researchers who use USCA or USCS instead.
So, if what we're really trying to do is identify the particular amended
version of the statute, why not do so directly by citing the _date of last
amendment_?
Greg Koster
CUNY Law School
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST