home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1994 March
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso
/
answers
/
misc
/
law
/
research
/
diffs
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-01-22
|
6KB
Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nic.hookup.net!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,misc.legal.moderated,misc.answers,news.answers
Subject: Legal Research FAQ (diffs)
Followup-To: poster
Date: 14 Jan 1994 22:36:10 -0500
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Lines: 144
Approved: news-answers-request@mit.edu
Distribution: world
Expires: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <2h7oba$c68@panix.com>
References: <2h7mpd$8gr@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Summary: This article lists major textual changes to the FAQ.
Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu misc.legal:32245 misc.legal.computing:3445 misc.legal.moderated:842 misc.answers:386 news.answers:14101
Archive-name: law/research/diffs
Version: 0.94
This article provides a summary of significant changes made to the FAQ
since the previous version.
34a34,41
> A current version of the FAQ may always be obtained via anonymous
> ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet/news.answers/law/research/part1
> and part2. If you do not have ftp access, send a mail message to
> mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the lines
> send usenet/news.answers/law/research/part1
> send usenet/news.answers/law/research/part2
> in the body of the message.
>
51a60,61
> TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
54c64
< = 0. TABLE OF CONTENTS
---
> 0. ROADMAP FOR THE IMPATIENT
84,89c94,100
< 4.2.1 Evidence
< 4.2.2 Civil Procedure
< 4.2.3 Criminal Law
< 4.2.4 Torts
< 4.2.5 Contracts
< 4.2.6 Copyright
---
> 4.2.1 Constitutional Law
> 4.2.2 Evidence
> 4.2.3 Civil Procedure
> 4.2.4 Criminal Law
> 4.2.5 Torts
> 4.2.6 Contracts
> 4.2.7 Copyright
106a118,144
> = 0. ROADMAP FOR THE IMPATIENT
>
> This section provides direct pointers to the answers to frequent
> questions.
>
> Q. I have the name of a case, but not a cite to it. How do I find
> the case?
> A. See section 4.1.2.
>
> Q. I know there's a famous Supreme Court case about <subject>. Is
> there an easy way to look it up?
> A. See section 4.2.1, and the end of sections 1.1.3 and 4.1.3.
>
> Q. How can I find out how courts interpret a specific statute?
> A. See section 4.1.1.
>
> Q. I need to know if case X has been overruled. How do I find out?
> A. See sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4.
>
> Q. Where do I find the federal statute(s) governing <subject>?
> A. See the end of section 4.1.1.
>
> Q. This case citation stuff is Greek to me. What does it mean?
> A. See section 2.1.
>
>
>
180a219,225
> Almost all District Court orders are appealable to the Circuit
> Court. However, except for a few specific types of orders (such as
> those granting or denying preliminary injunctions), most orders are
> not immediately appealable. Instead, parties must usually wait until
> the entire case has been disposed of in the District Court, and then
> raise all of their appeals at a single time.
>
361a407,419
> A note on the order of names in the caption: In District Court
> and Circuit Court opinions, the first name listed is *always* that of
> the plaintiff. This means that in a Circuit decision captioned
> _Party1 v. Party2_, you cannot tell from the caption alone which party
> appealed to the Circuit Court. In contrast, the title of U.S. Supreme
> Court decisions always tells you which party ("the petitioner")
> brought the appeal: it's the first name listed, regardless of whether
> that party was originally a plaintiff or a defendant in the trial
> court. (As a result, you can tell who won a case based solely on
> whether the Supreme Court reversed or affirmed the lower court: an
> affirmance means that the petitioner (listed first) lost, and vice
> versa for reversal.)
>
143a154,158
> One very useful feature of U.S.C.A. is the paperbound set of
> subject index volumes located at the end. These volumes provide
> pointers to all laws on any particular topic (Postal Employees,
> Eavesdropping, or whatever).
>
321a337,343
> One final note: there is a separate 3-volume subset of
> Shepard's that lists Acts of Congress and important court decisions
> by their popular names. These volumes serve the same purpose as the
> Popular Names Table at the end of the **U.S.C.A. index. The
> Shepard's list of cases is not even vaguely comprehensive, unlike
> the Table of Cases at the end of **F.P.D., but it has three major
> advantages:
322a345,356
> a) it covers a full two centuries in one place (unlike
> F.P.D., which is now in its 4th series, with separate Tables for
> different time periods),
>
> c) it covers state cases absent from F.P.D., and
>
> b) it allows you to find cases by looking under "Congresional Veto
> case" (answer: INS v. Chadha) or "Flag Burning cases" (answer:
> Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichmann).
>
>
>
391c425
< 4.2.1 Evidence
---
> 4.2.1 Constitutional Law
392a427,448
> The history and interpretation of the Constitution is, not
> surprisingly, the subject of innumerable works. This FAQ cannot
> begin to do justice to the available bibliography, and will not
> attempt to do so.
>
> For what it's worth, a widely available (and respected) overview
> is Laurence Tribe's single-volume _American Constitutional Law (2d
> ed.). Also useful, if less commonly available, is Rotunda and Nowak's
> 4-volume _Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure_ (2d
> ed.). Both works provide extensive cross-reference to other secondary
> sources, as well as discussions of hundreds of important Supreme Court
> decisions.
>
> Finally, note that much of constitutional law relates to
> standards for criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the sources
> mentioned in section 4.2.4 below contain informative discussions on
> numerous constitutional topics (such as the fifth amendment, the ex
> post facto clause, the double jeopardy clause, etc.).
--
Private e-mail welcome unless your name is Gerard.
Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com