Re: [legalcitem-courts] Thoughts on today's assignment:

[John Joergensen <jjoerg@andromeda.rutgers.edu>]

Indeed.  I'm thinking of English cases where "decisions" are handed down as completely independent documents by each judge.  Although, I also think that this needs to be part of a special section of the citation string related to pinpoint citation.

To wit:

Looking at the material that they have been toying with in the technical committee, they are talking about URI and/or IRI strings that specify the particular document.  The string is split into sections, each with a function which is more or less more specific as you go on.  Something like this order:

Section    data
1            specify that the string is a legal citation in legalciteM format
2.           It's a United States document
3.           it's a federal/state document (where the state is specified here, like Wyoming)
4            it's a court document
5.           It's this particular court (like the Wyoming Supreme Court)
6.           it's this particular kind of document (decision, etc.)
7.           It was issued on this date  (1998-07-14)  (in ISO format)
8.           IT'S IDENTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
        8a. a universal citation
        8b. which is 1998 WY 87.
OR  8a. a print reporter citation
        8b. which is 123 P.2d 456
        8c. and has a caption "Lowery v. Pennywise"
OR   8a. has a slip citation
        8b. which is 98-456
         8c. and has a caption "Lowery v. Pennywise"

9     and has a specific reference to paragraph 9 (for a unicite)
OR
9     and has a specific reference to page X (for slip or reporter)


In other words:
  URI:LegalciteM/US/Wyoming/Courtdoc/Supreme_Court/decision/1998-07-14/universal_cite/1998_WY_87/9.

Which would be equivalent to:

URI:LegalciteM/US/Wyoming/Courtdoc/Supreme_Court/decision/1998-07-14/reporter_cite/123_P2d_456:lowery_v_pennywise/458/

Which would be equivalent to:

URI:LegalciteM/US/Wyoming/Courtdoc/Supreme_Court/decision/1998-07-14/slip_cite/98-456:lowery_v_pennywise/3.

Now, in that last section, section 9, there could be more than just page or paragraph number spec'd out.  Where it is necessary for there to be further information to specify a place, other data can be allowed.

------------------------------------------------------------
John Joergensen
Associate Dean for Information Services and Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Newark
jjoerg@andromeda.rutgers.edu
------------------------------------------------------------

On 04/22/2015 11:25 AM, Hirsh, Kenneth (hirshkh) wrote:

Good day all,

Regarding the data elements, I raise the question whether we should include an item for the name of the document author. This may be a crucial bit of data in the case of a dissenting or concurring opinion, if that is the only item being cited from a case. For majority opinions, it is surplusage for purposes of resolving a citation, but it may be useful otherwise.

 

Regarding the nomenclature for what we in the U.S. typically call a docket number, I have no idea whether that has a different name in other countries. If we want a more generic name, I suggest “internal case identifier” or “local jurisdiction case identifier.”

 

Talk to you this afternoon.

Ken

 

Kenneth J. Hirsh

Director of the Law Library and I.T.

Professor of Practice

University of Cincinnati College of Law

ken.hirsh@uc.edu

(513) 556-0159