$100 Fine For a Wrong Case Citation

Via ABA Journal Law News, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals fined an attorney a $100 for a wrong citation to a case in the submitted brief.

The lawyer cited an unpublished case that supposedly upheld a stipulated damages clause in a vending machines contract. But a search for the case based on the name provided by the lawyer turned up a misrepresentation case brought by newlyweds against a wedding photographer.

The cite wasn’t helpful, either. It was listed as “2005 AP 160,” which sent the appeals court to 2005 WI App 160 and another “dead end,” the footnote said. When the court finally found the real case—which had an entirely different name—it learned “2005 AP 160” was the docket number.

CASEMAKERDigest

CASEMAKERDigest is a product of Casemaker. It is advertised as a tool that helps to stay current. It provides a first look at the most recent decisions published by the court. It currently covers federal courts only but it is expected to eventually cover all 50 states.

All important cases are summarized in one convenient location for a use within days of their publication.

Participants can sign up for a 30 day free trial during which the creators ask the participants to share their feedback and suggestions. After the trial runs out, the subscription is available for $39.95 a year.

You can also read about it at Robert Ambrogi's LawSites.

Top 10 Expert Witness Cases of 2008

Yet another post dedicated to the top ten. This time, it is a list of top ten expert witness cases of 2008, via blog post at IMS Expert Services. You can check out the complete list with short abstracts right here. Robert Ambrogi, a lawyer, writer and media consultant, compiled this list of what he thinks are the top ten expert witness cases of this year. Take a look and see for yourself. Let us know if you agree or not and feel free to post your suggestions.

A case against God?

The BBC News featured an article titled "Legal Case against God dismissed" on October 16, 2008. What do you think, can one sue God? The suit was brought by a Nebraskan senator Ernie Chambers to make a point that "anyone can sue anyone, even God", as reported by the BBC news. The US judge Marlon Polk, of 4th Judicial District Court of Nebraska, dismissed the case on the grounds that the defendant [God] does not have an address; therefore legal papers cannot be served. Judge Polk wrote in his ruling:

Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Petitions to Watch at the U.S. Supreme Court

The first edition of “Petitions to Watch” for the October 2008 term features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29, as featured on SCOTUSBLOG.

The following issues are raised: district courts’ ability to amend incorrect sentences, the constitutionality of appointments to a patent appeals board, the validity of the “automatic companion” rule under the Fourth Amendment, the statute of limitations in securities fraud claims, whether state criminal convictions require jury unanimity, and many (many, many) others.

Editions of Petitions to Watch from prior terms are available at SCOTUS archives here.

JUREEKA!

Jureeka! is a Firefox add-on that looks for legal citations in ordinary webpages and turns them into hyperlinks that lead to a free version of the cited source (mostly U.S. law), as featured on Legal Writing Prof Blog. The JUREEKA! blog lists the recognizable citations, such are citations to US cases in regional reporters (A.2d, P.2d, P.3d, N.E.2d, N.W.2d, S.E.2d, and S.W.3d). Jureeka! retrieves materials only by the recognizable citation; however it is a dynamic tool because it is not known where the case is going to come from. It seems to work like a crawler searching for citations and linking to the freely available legal materials on the Internet, which can be useful when one does not have an access to a subscription legal database.
Feel free to share your feedback!