Showing posts with label court decision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court decision. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The UK Supreme Court Launched a New Blog

Via SCOTUSBlog, New United Kingdom Supreme Court Launched, the UKSCblog is dedicated to the UK Supreme Court.

The UK Supreme Court is the UK's highest court; its judgments bind lower courts and thus shape the development of English Law. Since 1399, the Law Lords, the judges of the most senior court in the country, have sat within Parliament. From October 2009, however, they have moved to an independent court in the Middlesex Guildhall. To mark this historic development, this blog has been set up to provide commentary on the UK Supreme Court and its judgments.

The Supreme Court is to be made up of 12 Justices. The first Justices will be the Law Lords who made up the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as at July 2009. The Justices will be housed in the Supreme Court and are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords. The current Justices are Lord Phillips, Lord Hope, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke.

The UKSC's blog also links to the Archive, information About the blog, information About the UK Supreme Court, and many useful links such are the House of Lords Judgments, the BAILII Court of Appeals decisions, or the Court of Appeals listing calendar.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Reliability of Wikipedia

Are you or were you thinking about citing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in your memo, essay, report, or not to mention in your legal document, such as a brief? Hm, take a moment and think twice.
A New Jersey judge who allowed a lawyer to plug an evidentiary gap with a Wikipedia page has been reversed on the ground that the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" is not a reliable source of information.

As stated in the ruling of Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, No. L-3394-06, 2009 WL 1025176 (N.J. Super. A.D. April 17, 2009),

[I]t is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the "article and thereafter offer it in support of any given position," an appeals court held. "Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable and clearly not one 'whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," such as would support judicial notice under New Jersey Evidence Rule 201(b)(3).

Read more about this at:
Wikipedia Too Malleable to Be Reliable Evidence
Jersey Court Rejects Wikipedia Evidence
Wikipedia is not reliable?
The Whacking of Wikipedia, 123
Wikipedia Too Malleable...