SURVEY

1st Cir. | 2nd Cir. | 3rd Cir. | 4th Cir. | 5th Cir. | 6th Cir. | 7th Cir. | 8th Cir. | 9th Cir. | 10th Cir. | 11th Cir. | DC Cir. | Federal Cir. | Other Cir.

FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - FIRST CIRCUIT COURTS
Table of Contents
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - SECOND CIRCUIT COURTS
Connecticut, New York, Vermont

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - THIRD CIRCUIT COURTS
Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - FOURTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Maryland, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - FIFTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - SIXTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - NINTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregaon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - TENTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURTS
Alabama, Florida, Georgia

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURTS
District of Columbia

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS
Patent, Federal Claims etc.

Table of Contents
FEDERAL JUDGES/CLERKS - OTHER OR NOT KNOWN FEDERAL COURTS
Court of International Trade etc.

Table of Contents
FEDERAL AGENCIES (including personal statements from laywers therein)

Table of Contents
BAR/LAW ASSOCIATIONS

Table of Contents
FOREIGN JUDGES AND LAWYERS

Table of Contents
STATE COURTS, AGENCIES, OFFICIALS [AND INDIVIUDALS STATEMENTS]

Table of Contents
LAW PROFESSORS - other than Law Libarians

Table of Contents
OTHER TEACHERS/PROFESSORS

Table of Contents
LAW LIBRARIANS - LIBRARIANS

Table of Contents
LAW STUDENTS

Table of Contents
LAWYERS

Table of Contents
LEGAL PUBLISHERS
HyperLaw

Table of Contents
JOURNALISTS/WRITERS

Table of Contents
OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

Table of Contents
GENERAL PUBLIC

Table of Contents
HYPERLAW SUMMARY OF CONCERNS OF FEDERAL JUDGES
Originally appeared in MARCH 24, 1996 HYPERLAW REPORT - JUDICIAL CONFERENCE PUBLIC COMMENTS

Many federal judges fully support the ABA Report and understand the policy reasons underlying the Report and Resolution.

Others have concerns, some based upon a misunderstanding of the proposal, others based upon differing views of the role of the courts, and others based upon related policy issues.

Following is an overview of the concerns.

PUBLISHED VERSUS UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
1. Many judges have a concern that sequence numbering so-called unpublished opinions is in some way suggesting that these opinions may indeed be of precedential value.

COMMENT: One would assume that these judges know that Lexis and Westlaw electronically publish many so-called unpublished opinions and that most people do not have access to those on-line systems and thus do not have access to those opinions. These judges do not seem to have the answer to why the courts should discourage access by the many when the privileged have access.

ORDERS VERSUS OPINIONS
2. Many judges have a concern at the district court level because of the large number of orders and memoranda opinions. They do not know how to distinguish as to which documents require sequence numbers. However, in this line of thought, many district judges say they like the present system which is that if they want an opinion "published", they mail it to West Publishing Company

COMMENT: The fallacy in this argument is that the judges are already making this determination when they send the manuscripts to West. Requiring sequence numbers merely institutionalizes this "informal" practice, and, makes the selection of district court case something in the public domain. So, even if many judges wish to not number the non-precedential opinions, the public would still be ahead by getting the bulk of the meaningful opinions under a useful immediately available citation.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTY OF SEQUENCING OPINIONS
3. Many district court judges and clerks point out the problem of sequencing opinions where there are numerous judges and numerous divisions in the same court.

COMMENT: If a court only sequence numbers precedential opinions (and related amending order), this could probably be done by hand, but it would be best if done by computer. However, every opinion/order is already being placed in a computer, which prepares the computerized docket sheet available on PACER. Thus, this system could 0 easily mark all opinions/orders to for sequencing, and automatically assign the sequence number that would appear in the docket sheet.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTY OF MAINTAINING SEQUENCE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER TABLES
4. Many judges point to the fact that cases and opinions therein are already identified by a docket (case) number and worry about the need to maintain cross-reference tables between the sequence number and the docket number.

COMMENT: The PACER docket system could easily be modified to handle these tables, plus, lists could easily be generated and placed on the WEB. One interesting issue: this same issue applies to the present West citations -- they do not include the docket numbers. Moreover, no one ever inserts the West citation into the docket sheet for the case. Has anyone ever pulled an opinion and tried to see if that case was published by West. That is truly a pain, although Westlaw and Lexis helps. It is worse if there are multiple opinions in the same case.

DIFFICULTY OF INSERTING PARAGRAPH NUMBERS
5. A number of judges complain about the enormous burden of inserting paragraph numbers. Other judges point out that this is easily automated and is not a problem at all.

COMMENT: There are many ways to number paragraphs. The second group of judges is correct. In my view, the first group are just complaining and probably complained about moving from typewriters to computers and probably have been complaining for the last five years about moving to Windows word processors.

DISFIGUREMENT
6. A number of judges complain about disfigurement of their opinions.

COMMENT: The answer to that is to two-fold. First, no one ever claims that the West key numbers disfigure the West opinions. Second, there are a variety of ways to insert paragraph numbers to minimize visual aesthetic effect, from using small superscripts to placing the numbers in a margin. Thomson does this now in Canada, and Thomson/ West does this now for South Dakota, New Mexico, and US Court of Military Appeals opinions. Finally, to the extent that a reader has never seen paragraph numbers, they may prove to be a distraction, but, the mind is readily trained to not notice such distractions.

PARAGRAPH NUMBERING AFFECTS HOW OPINIONS ARE READ
7. Some judges object to numbering paragraphs because it would tend to encourage some lawyers not to read the entire opinion.

COMMENT: This is a subjective statement -- one could respond that West key numbers in the text, which are not official, encourage citations to those topical categories and lawyers still do not read the entire opinion. This advantage of an arbitrary paragraph number is that is has no meaning, and therefore, no one should rely upon only a single paragraph. However, a West key number does indeed encourage lawyers to confine reading only to the material under a single key number.