1 / 16

Authority Without Borders: Citing Electronic Materials in the 21 st Century

Authority Without Borders: Citing Electronic Materials in the 21 st Century. Ellie Margolis Temple University Beasley School of Law. From Google Scholar:. *319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

silas-church
Download Presentation

Authority Without Borders: Citing Electronic Materials in the 21 st Century

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Authority Without Borders: Citing Electronic Materials in the 21st Century Ellie Margolis Temple University Beasley School of Law

  2. From Google Scholar: *319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion of petitioner Celotex Corporation for summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been exposed to petitioner's asbestos products. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, however, holding that petitioner's failure to support its motion with evidence tending to negate such exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor. Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 244 U. S. App. D. C. 160, 756 F. 2d 181 (1985). This view conflicted with that of the Third Circuit in In re Japanese Electronic Products, 723 F. 2d 238(1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574 (1986).[1] We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 474 U. S. 944 (1985), and now reverse the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit.

  3. From Westlaw *319 Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion of petitioner Celotex Corporation for summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been exposed to petitioner’s asbestos products. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, however, holding that petitioner’s failure to support its motion with evidence tending to negate such exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor. Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 244 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 756 F.2d 181 (1985). This view conflicted with that of the Third Circuit in In re Japanese **2551 Electronic Products, 723 F.2d 238 (1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).1 We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 474 U.S. 944, 106 S.Ct. 342, 88 L.Ed.2d 285 (1985), and now reverse the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit.

  4. Statistical Report from DOJ cited by Supreme Court Our review determined that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detained 762 aliens as a result of the PENTTBOM investigation. Of these 762 aliens, 24 were in INS custody on immigration violations prior to the September 11 attacks. The remaining 738 aliens were arrested between September 11, 2001, and August 6, 2002, as a direct result of the FBI’s PENTTBOM investigation. All 762 detainees were placed on what became known as an “INS Custody List” because of the FBI’s assessment that they may have had a connection to the September 11 attacks or terrorism in general, or because the FBI was unable, at least initially, to determine whether they were connected to terrorism.

  5. What is being cited?

  6. S. Ct. OT 2009 – 28 cases, 61 citations 20 in Majority 18 in Concurrence 23 in Dissent 3 refer to facts of case 6 refer to traditional primary or secondary 14 refer to educational, nonprofit or commercial websites 38 refer to government websites, mostly statistics or other factual assertions.

  7. Reasons to Use Electronic Materials • Best Source of Information • Easy Access • Legitimacy • No reason why not.

  8. Adjudicative Facts • Judicial Notice • Due Process Concerns • Ethical Concerns

  9. Authority • Legislative Facts • Blogs • Quasi-Legal Authority

  10. Citation Issues--Concerns • Integrity of Content • Permanence • Broken Links

  11. Citation Issues Bluebook Rule 18.2.2 “Internet citation should include information designed to facilitate the clearest path of access to the cited reference.”

  12. Judicial Conference Guidelines • Evaluate accuracy, reliability and stability of source before citing • Use Bluebook Rule 18.2 • Carefully reproduce URLs • Preserve and attach source as part of opinion/file • Avoid hyperlinks to commercial vendors

  13. Bottom Line Don’t shy away from internet sources, but use them wisely and thoughtfully

More Related