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

Authority Without Borders Authority Without Borders Citing Electronic Materials Citing Electronic Materials

in the 21in the 21stst Century Century

Ellie MargolisEllie Margolis

Temple University Beasley Temple University Beasley School of LawSchool of Law

From Google ScholarFrom Google Scholar

319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court

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

From WestlawFrom Westlaw

319 Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court319 Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion of petitioner granted the motion of petitioner CelotexCelotex Corporation for Corporation for summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been exposed to petitionerexposed to petitionerrsquorsquos asbestos products A divided panel of the s asbestos products A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed however holding that petitionerhowever holding that petitionerrsquorsquos failure to support its motion s failure to support its motion with evidence tending to with evidence tending to negatenegate such exposure precluded the such exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor entry of summary judgment in its favor Catrett v Johns-Manville Sales Corp 244 USAppDC 160 756 F2d 181 (1985) This view conflicted This view conflicted with that of the Third Circuit in with that of the Third Circuit in In re Japanese 25512551 Electronic Products 723 F2d 238 (1983) rev revrsquorsquod on other grounds d on other grounds sub nom Matsushita Electric Industrial Co v Zenith Radio Corp 475 US 574 106 SCt 1348 89 LEd2d 538 (1986)1 We 475 US 574 106 SCt 1348 89 LEd2d 538 (1986)1 We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict 474 US 944 106 SCt granted certiorari to resolve the conflict 474 US 944 106 SCt 342 88 LEd2d 285 (1985) and now reverse the decision of the 342 88 LEd2d 285 (1985) and now reverse the decision of the District of Columbia CircuitDistrict of Columbia Circuit

Statistical Report from DOJ Statistical Report from DOJ cited by Supreme Courtcited by Supreme Court

Our review determined that the Immigration and Our review determined that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detained 762 aliens as a Naturalization Service (INS) detained 762 aliens as a result of the PENTTBOM investigation Of these 762 result of the PENTTBOM investigation Of these 762 aliens 24 were in INS custody on immigration aliens 24 were in INS custody on immigration violations prior to the September 11 attacks The violations prior to the September 11 attacks The remaining 738 aliens were arrested between remaining 738 aliens were arrested between September 11 2001 and August 6 2002 as a direct September 11 2001 and August 6 2002 as a direct result of the FBIresult of the FBIrsquorsquos PENTTBOM investigation All 762 s PENTTBOM investigation All 762 detainees were placed on what became known as an detainees were placed on what became known as an ldquoldquoINS Custody ListINS Custody Listrdquordquo because of the FBI because of the FBIrsquorsquos assessment s assessment that they may have had a connection to the that they may have had a connection to the September 11 attacks or terrorism in general or September 11 attacks or terrorism in general or because the FBI was unable at least initially to because the FBI was unable at least initially to determine whether they were connected to terrorismdetermine whether they were connected to terrorism

19981998 20092009 Total CasesTotal Cases

1st1st 11 2424 135135

3d3d 22 2525 231231

5th5th 44 1414 105105

7th7th 00 5858 384384

9th9th 22 8282 599599

S CtS Ct 11 2828 166166

What is being What is being citedcited

S Ct OT 2009 ndash 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

Reasons to Use Electronic Reasons to Use Electronic MaterialsMaterials

Best Source of InformationBest Source of Information Easy AccessEasy Access LegitimacyLegitimacy No reason why notNo reason why not

Adjudicative FactsAdjudicative Facts

Judicial Notice Due Process Concerns Ethical Concerns

AuthorityAuthority

Legislative FactsBlogsQuasi-Legal Authority

Citation Issues--ConcernsCitation Issues--Concerns

Integrity of ContentPermanenceBroken Links

Citation IssuesCitation Issues

Bluebook Rule 1822

ldquoInternet citation should include information designed to facilitate the clearest path of access to the cited referencerdquo

Judicial Conference Guidelines

Evaluate accuracy reliability and stability of source before citing

Use Bluebook Rule 182 Carefully reproduce URLs Preserve and attach source as part of

opinionfile Avoid hyperlinks to commercial

vendors

Bottom Line

Donrsquot shy away from internet sources but use them wisely and thoughtfully

Authority Without Borders Citing Electronic Materials in the 21st Century

Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw

Statistical Report from DOJ cited by Supreme Court

Slide 7

Slide 8


Reasons to Use Electronic Materials

Adjudicative Facts

Authority

Citation Issues--Concerns

Citation Issues


Bottom Line

From Google ScholarFrom Google Scholar

319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court

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







1st1st 11 2424 135135

3d3d 22 2525 231231

5th5th 44 1414 105105

7th7th 00 5858 384384

9th9th 22 8282 599599

S CtS Ct 11 2828 166166










AuthorityAuthority





Bluebook Rule 1822






vendors

Bottom Line



Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw


Slide 7

Slide 8



Adjudicative Facts

Authority


Citation Issues


Bottom Line







1st1st 11 2424 135135

3d3d 22 2525 231231

5th5th 44 1414 105105

7th7th 00 5858 384384

9th9th 22 8282 599599

S CtS Ct 11 2828 166166










AuthorityAuthority





Bluebook Rule 1822






vendors

Bottom Line



Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw


Slide 7

Slide 8



Adjudicative Facts

Authority


Citation Issues


Bottom Line










AuthorityAuthority





Bluebook Rule 1822






vendors

Bottom Line



Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw


Slide 7

Slide 8



Adjudicative Facts

Authority


Citation Issues


Bottom Line




Bluebook Rule 1822






vendors

Bottom Line



Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw


Slide 7

Slide 8



Adjudicative Facts

Authority


Citation Issues


Bottom Line





vendors

Bottom Line



Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw


Slide 7

Slide 8



Adjudicative Facts

Authority


Citation Issues


Bottom Line

Bottom Line



Slide 2

Slide 3

From Google Scholar

From Westlaw


Slide 7

Slide 8



Adjudicative Facts

Authority


Citation Issues


Bottom Line

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

Documents

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