Connie Crosby – twitter/conniecrosby
lo-fi librarian – twitter/infobunny
Steve Matthews – twitter/stevematthews
Jennifer Vass – twitter/jenenifer
Barbara Gordon - twitter/barbaragordon
Neil Stewart – twitter/neilstewart
James Mullan – twitter/jimmy1712
Abbie Mulvihill – twitter/abstracked
Davina Gifford – twitter/littlestar19
Nick Holmes – twitter/nickholmes
Scott Vine – twitter/ioverlord
lforste 10:53 pm on May 20, 2008 | # |
I am contemplating why there has been no debate on the continued ‘tradition’ of the authorised law report. This year I have been perusing the library budget trying to figure out where the money goes and if there is any duplication that can be weeded out. I came to the section for electronic law reports and began to ponder the need for the various authorised reports, unauthorised reports, unreported judgment databases, and the variety of indexes and other tools we use to research caselaw. If the courts are providing judgments directly to the varous LII’s, then the issues that prompted the rise of the initial authorised law reports (UK) surely no longer exist. It is the judgment that is the law, the rest is editorial analysis – useful but not binding. There is significant push for online legislation to be official or authorised. Why is there no push for the web/LII versions of judgments to be accepted? Does it come down to the maintenance of contracts with the publishers?
All blawgers should tweet : Binary Law 9:34 am on May 30, 2008 | # |
[...] on Twitter now and follow a handful of others. For some suggestions, try me and those I follow, law.librarian contributors and Legal [...]