April 18, 1997© HyperLaw, Inc.®

Tenth Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform

jctab10c.htm

Back to HyperLaw Home Page

Back to Judicial Conference Comments Page


HyperLaw, Inc.

Tenth Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform -- March/April 1997


Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming

HyperLaw Comments:

Following is the survey sent to Federal Court Judges and Magistrates by the Administrative Office and Automation Committee of the Judicial Conference and the responses received from judges in the Tenth circuit. These responses, for all circuits, are also available in RTF format. In addition, individual letters were sent by certain judges. These may be found on the Judicial Conference Comments Page.

The comments have been excerpted for the Tenth Circuit.

The Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit is [note information as to judges is current as of 1996]:

[to be provided]

See, critical comments re survey by Judge Leif M. Clark, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas:

"I am concerned that the materials furnished in this survey were woefully inadequate in addressing what I believe are very real issues for the judges who are being asked to complete this survey. The questions in the survey are "bottom line," and do not reflect the nuances of the issue, or the myriad of reasons that a given judge may have answered in the way he or she did. As a result, I think it will be dangerous indeed to draw any conclusions of value with regard to the attitude of the federal judiciary to this issue."

To make your views known as to judges who have made anonymous comments, one could communicate with the Chief Judge of the Circuit wherein the judge sits. The Chief Judge is also one of the twenty-seven members of the Judicial Conference which will decide whether to adopt the ABA Proposal at the semi-annual meeting of the Judicial Conference in September, 1997.


Following are the survey questions. Explanatory materials did not accompany the survey. The identity of the Judges responding to the survey has not made public. Many judges see no need to change the system. They like the way it works now. Many judges do not see that it is their responsibility to assure that opinions that are authoritative and citable are made available to the public either in paper or in electronic form. In addition, many judges, including those who will vote on approving the proposal after the Committee is finished with its work, seem to have prejudged the issue, without the facts.

ABA RESOLUTION ON UNIVERSAL CITATION SYSTEM
FEDERAL COURT JUDGE SURVEY FORM

1 Should the clerk of your court be required to add an official citation number beyond the case number to each opinion?

2. Should the federal judiciary Require the use of the official citation?

Permit it?

3 .Should federal judges number the paragraphs in fin opinion so that there may be Pinpoint citations in which no private sector company can have a copyright.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL JUDGES SURVEY ON ADOPTION OF THE ABA CITATION RESOLUTION - TENTH CIRCUIT ONLY

Legends
Judge Type - Cir = Circuit Dist = District Bank = Bankruptcy
Mag = Magistrate CFC = Court of Federal Claims CIT = Court of International Trade

Judge

Type


Cir.


#1


#2a


#2b


#3


Comments


Bank


10


no


no


no


no



Mag


10


yes


yes..



Yes


#2a. Yes. Uniformity is the purpose of the ABA Resolution


Mag


10


no


no


no


no



Dist


10


no



yes


no



Dist


10


yes


yes...



yes


#2a. Yes, it should be required.


Bank


10


no


no


no


no



Dist


10


no


...


...


...


#2a. If the clerk is required to add the official citation, it should be required.

#2b. It should be either required or not permitted. It should not be used permissively.

#3. Only if the universal citation system is adopted.


Dist


10


no


no


o.k.


No



Dist


10


no


no


no


no



Dist


10


no!


no!



no!



Mag


10


no


no


...


No


#2b. If the specific district believes it will be of substantial assistance, yes.


Dist


10


no...


no..


no...


no....


1. Others will need to address what additional work and expense would be required if the clerk were to monitor and record an "official citation number." In the court's opinion, any additional work in this regard would not yield an appreciable benefit to the courts. The court has no complaints with the current system of opinion publishing and its reliance on The Blue Book: A Uniform System of Citation (16th ed.) (1996) for citations.

2. The court finds the standard form of citation recommended in the ABA resolution to be awkward and contrary to current practices of citation and legal research. Until some real and appreciable benefit or advantage from these changes is shown, the court would oppose any requirement or tolerance of this citation form.

3. The court's opinions are written first for the parties and second as a contribution to a growing body of case law. The court is not disturbed that certain private entities profit from assembling and publishing the case law and that our legal system protects their work in this respect. It seems hardly satisfying that a court should assume additional work for no other reason than to frustrate these efforts of private sector companies. The court opposes the numbering of paragraphs.


Dist


10


yes


yes



yes



Cir


10


no


no



no



Dist


10


no


no


no


no



Cir


10


no


no


no


no



Dist


10


no


no


yes


no



Dist


10


no


no



no



Dist


10


No


No


yes


No



Bank


10


...




...


#1. I guess its ok - rather a hassle.

#3. We can do that.


Bank


10


yes


yes


yes


yes



Bank


10


no


no


no


no



Cir


10


no.....


no..


no...


no...


#1. No. Additional identifiers beyond the official court docket number should be assigned by the database provider, not the court. The sequential numbering of decisions serves no legitimate purpose for internal case management and, therefore, would add an unnecessary burden to offices already working with reduced staff.

#2a. No. See answer to 1. Citations not to the official reporter should include the "docket number, the court, and the full date of the most recent major disposition of the case," as set forth in Bluebook Rule 10.8.1(b).

#3. No. The court provides the text on numbered pages and any other service beyond that should be provided by the database provider

.


Mag


10


no....


No



no


#1. (a) A persuasive argument has not been made for a need for an additional, official citation.

(b) For each court to add official citation numbers would create unnecessary confusion by the use of numerous, diverse numbering systems, absent adoption of some uniform system for all courts.

( c) Creation of another citation system would unnecessarily add work to the Office of the Clerk. That office already has enough to do for the staff it has.


Dist


10


no


no



no



Cir


10


no


yes



no



Cir


10


no


no


no


no



Dist


10


no


no


no


no



Bank


10


no


no


yes


no



Cir


10


no


no


...


no


#2b. No opinion


Cir


10


no


no


..


No


#2b. I do not care


Cir


10


no


no


no....


No


#2b We have no control over what someone else will do.


Bank


10






(Faxed form was so light we could not read it. Called secretary.) Judge's secretary called back and said the judge said his comments are: "he thinks the resolution sounds like a lot more trouble than it is worth."