Cases and Documents?

bdarcus
I've got a question for the legal people. I'm working on an RDF ontology for bibliographic sources that I hope to be used in Zotero. I'm stuck on modeling legal sources though.

My impulse is to say that there are two base classes of interest: Document and Case. One does not ever cite a case per se; rather, one cites documents (decisions, dissenting opinions, briefs, etc.) related to a case.

So if I'm right about that, what should we call that relation? We need something more specific than "related" of course. It might be so specific as "case", or could be (and might be better as) something of medium generality. I can't come up with a good one: isPartOf and comments, for exampl, both seem off.

Any input would be appreciated.
  • bdarcus
    Quick followup idea: we could also treat decision, dissenting opinion, etc. as relations.
  • bill
    Yep, "case" is probably not a good term to use generally speaking. A "case" may have several "decisions" rendered by various courts during it's life.

    I wouldn't distinguish "dissenting opinion" either since it is normally part of the "decision" and is not a separate document really.
  • bdarcus
    Yep, "case" is probably not a good term to use generally speaking. A "case" may have several "decisions" rendered by various courts during it's life.
    OK, but so how should we model this? What are the conceptual objects, and what are the relations between them?
    I wouldn't distinguish "dissenting opinion" either since it is normally part of the "decision" and is not a separate document really.
    But what If I in fact want to cite a particular dissenting opinion; say this one by Scalia? I'm not a legal professional; just a scholar who sometimes uses legal texts.
  • bill
    edited August 22, 2007
    Sorry, I probably won't be much help with RDF ontologies or conceptual objects. I do think the second paragraph of your first post is absolutely right though.

    Please ignore the Cornell LII multi-document approach to decisions - I'm not really sure why they do that. The official reporter concatenates them into one document. A lawyer would cite the Scalia dissent using a jumpcite ie: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 582 (2003).

    See: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html, notice the pagination.
  • dvd
    edited September 20, 2007
    A lawyer would cite the Scalia dissent using a jumpcite ie: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 582 (2003).
    I think a lawyer would cite that as:

    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 582 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

    It's not clear, but I'm guessing you're talking about developing an ontology for citing legal sources in non-legal research. Is that true?

    Lawyers, I think, would generalize sources into four broad categories: cases, statutes, journal articles, secondary reference materials. A case is a case. We cite to decisions in cases. There may be various decisions in the life of a case, and each will have its associated documents, primarily briefs, but we make all references in terms of the decision.

    Sometimes for important cases that have many decisions, we'll number them, e.g. Handschu I, Handschu II, and so on. But those are like nicknames we use as shorthand to refer to the decisions, and we use them in citations like:

    Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 349 F. Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (Handschu I)

    Whereas you could probably scrape the dissent info from Lexis or another source, I don't think you could do it for the short name.
  • bill
    edited September 20, 2007
    Of course, the "(Scalia, J. dissenting)" is missing but I was trying to supply an example that can be supported by current metadata fields stored in the Zotero database. There is simply no way that a Zotero translator (javascript screen-scraper) today is going to reliably discern what page ranges are attributed to what justice(s).

    A lawyer or student will simply need to add this manually (and probably the jump cite too) after exporting the citation from Zotero. The goal should be to "do the simple thing first."
  • bdarcus
    It's not clear, but I'm guessing you're talking about developing an ontology for citing legal sources in non-legal research. Is that true?
    Yes, but one that can be useful for legal people too, or least extended to do so (RDF is designed for extension). So we want the basics right, and perhaps leave details to others.

    I talked to someone I know who used to work for Lexis-Nexis, and his argument was it"s best to just focus on documents. The example I gave him (which he seemed to like) was:


    <http://ex.net/1> a bibo:LegalDocument ;
    dcterms:title "Brown v. Board of Education" ;
    dcterms:issued "1954-05-17" ;
    bibo:argued "1952-12-09" ;
    bibo:argued "1953-12-08" ;
    bibo:court <http://ex.net/courts/uss> ;
    bibo:volume "247" ;
    bibo:pageStart "483" ;
    bibo:reverses <http://ex.net/2> ;
    dcterms:isPartOf <http://ex.net/3> .

    <http://ex.net/3> a bibo:CourtReporter ;
    bibo:shortTitle "U.S." .


    This is RDF, so you have to visualize a graph. So imagine:


    <http://ex.net/1> --- bibo:reverses ---> <http://ex.net/2>


    I'm now thinking it might be better to have a subclass of LegalDocument called LegalDecision (along with LegalBrief; we already have Statute).

    Does that sound sensible?
  • bdarcus
    I'm now thinking it might be better to have a subclass of LegalDocument called LegalDecision ...
    Hmm ... not sure that works for a dissent; does it? Maybe LegalOpinion?
  • dvd
    First, at least on Lexis, you could scrape the dissent info, but I don't think that's true for concurrences.

    As for showing the relationships, have you ever looked at a Shepard's? It's been a while since I've used the book form, but I wonder if it would be useful to look at. Next time I'm in the law library I'll take a look. If I recall correctly, it has a case citation, and then under it a list of all subsequent citing cases.

    (Sorry if this is stuff you already know). Shepard's online shows all prior and subsequent rulings in a case. Then it will also show all cases and journal articles that cite to the case. It specifies if a subsequent case overrules, distinguishes, questions, affirms the holding in the subject case. I'm not sure whether it will show a case that has overturned the subject case even if the subject case is not explicitly cited. Also, sometimes a case is overruled in part. And another problem, often a decision will overrule a whole bunch of cases. Btw, I'd use "overrule", rather than reverse.

    I do agree that starting with LegalDocument makes more sense. Maybe Opinion and Dissent should be subclasses of Decision.
  • bdarcus
    I do agree that starting with LegalDocument makes more sense. Maybe Opinion and Dissent should be subclasses of Decision.
    So you're saying:


    LegalDocument
    Decision
    Dissent
    Opinion


    I was thinking:


    LegalDocument
    Opinion
    Decision
    Dissent


    If I'm wrong, can you quickly explain why?
  • dvd
    Yes, I think this is the way to do it:


    LegalDocument
    Decision
    Opinion
    Concurrence
    Dissent


    The way I would explain it, though I don't have much authority for this is that the opinion is the explanation of the majority's result in the decision. The dissent is addressed to the opinion. Concurrences agree with the judgment, but disagree with the rationale in the opinion.

    See this as an example:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
  • bdarcus
    edited September 24, 2007
    dvd: let me just make sure you understand the technical dimension to what you are saying. If we say a Decision is a subclass of a LegalDocument, then we are saying "all Decision documents are also Legal documents." If we search for all LegalDocument examples in a proper RDF store, for example, we will get back Decisions as well (including its subclasses).

    So in your hierarchy, you are saying Opinion, Concurrence and Dissent are all also Decisions.

    Is that what you intend?
  • dvd
    You're right on bdarcus. Thanks for clarifying. That's not what I intended. What I mean is that opinions, concurrences, and dissents are parts of a decision. How would you represent that relationship in RDF?
  • grieth
    the terms 'opinion' and 'dissent' are very much a part of US culture, but elsewhere the nomenclature is different. In Australia, the hierachy would, if real details of structure were desired, probably be like this:

    1. Legal Document
    1.1 Judgement
    1.1.1 Orders
    1.1.1 Reasons
    1.1.1.1 Majority
    1.1.1.1.1 Ratio
    1.1.1.1.1Concurs
    1.1.1.1 Minority

    The term 'case' is difficult as it is casually used to refer to a judgement, but more strictly refers to one cause or proceeding through the courts. I don't think that a 'case' is properly a legal document. Rather, legal documents (including judgements) would belong to a case.

    It would be unfortunate if the standards focused on Lexis or other commercial providers, rather than the LII's, particularly as the LII's in some areas are now the most used sources (eg austlii.edu.au is now the most used service in australia).

    Hope this adds to the discussion.
  • agv
    Cites of cases from Inter-American System of Human Rights and constitutional national courts

    I am very impressed with Zotero. I started to use it some little time ago and I like it very much. But, sometimes I feel that it is less developed for the legal field than for other academic areas. For instance, the “case” has several fields that are most useful to the Anglo-American system of law, but it is less appropriate for other legal systems, such as the Inter-American or Latin American system.
    I have to analyze a lot of sentences and advisory opinions of Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In addition, I have to study other jurisprudence from several different national courts.
    The official way to cite the Inter - American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence is, for example:
    Corte IDH. Caso Gangaram Panday Vs. Surinam. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 21 de enero de 1994. Serie C No. 16, párr. 45.
    Corte IDH. Caso Tristán Donoso Vs. Panamá. Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 27 de enero de 2009. Serie C No. 193, párr. 78.
    Corte IDH. Condición Jurídica y Derechos Humanos del Niño. Opinión Consultiva OC-17/02 del 28 de agosto de 2002. Serie A No. 17, párrs. 78 y 89.
    Often, many of them have also separate opinions from judges.
    In addition, it is very necessary to cite the Reports of Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in my thesis, such as:
    Informe nº 15/08, Petición 1163-05, Inadmisibilidad, Alex Solis Fallas, Costa Rica, 4 de marzo de 2008, párr. 12.
    Finally, I have to analyze national decisions and judgments of constitutional courts or national chambers, for example:
    Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica, recurso de amparo interpuesto por Mario Antonio Hincapié Alvarez vs. Juzgado de Familia de Heredia, exp: 06-003489-0007-CO, res. Nº 2006-05855, 28 de abril de 2006.
    Thank you, beforehand, your help.
    Sincerely,
    agv
  • bdarcus
    ... the “case” has several fields that are most useful to the Anglo-American system of law, but it is less appropriate for other legal systems ...
    What are these "several fields" that you find inappropriate, and what are you missing?
  • agv
    I will try to explain better my comment:
    1. At least in the Inter-American System of Human Rights, some fields are not useful, for example:
    -Case: It could be better to use “issue” instead of “case” because issue is a more general notion. An issue could be a judgment or case, an Advisory opinion or a report.
    -Report: because this term could lead to confusion. “Report” is the name of the resolution from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights.
    2. On the other hand, I am missing the following fields:
    -Issue name: instead of “case”, because “case” is one of kind of issue.
    -Country or adversary: it is very important to be able to fill this information in separate field in order to analyze the jurisprudence.
    -Type of resolution: sentencia (or case)/opinión consultiva (advisory opinion)/ medidas preliminares/informe (report)
    -Kind of judgment: there are many kinds of judgments, for instance, “Excepciones preliminares”; “Reparaciones y costas”; “Interpretación de sentencia de fondo, reparaciones y costas”.
    -Number:
    -Separate opinions from judges: it is better to give the possibility of fill this field with many names (as in the field “counsel”).
    3. Finally, the fields suggested for the Inter-American System of Human Rights work for the jurisprudence from national courts or the Latin American countries. However, often is necessary to distinguish between the number of the file of the proceeding (expedient) and the number of the resolution.
    4. In addition, regarding with the “date”, it is better to be able to fill -day, month and year- in separate fields, so it allows to analyze the periods of the jurisprudence.
    Thanks a lot,
    agv
  • agv
    In addition, regarding the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, see
    http://www.corteidh.or.cr/casos.cfm
    http://www.corteidh.or.cr/opiniones.cfm
    http://www.corteidh.or.cr/supervision.cfm
    http://www.corteidh.or.cr/medidas.cfm
    If you like, you could see the English version.
    Thank you, beforehand, your help.
    Sincerely,
    agv
  • bdarcus
    edited August 8, 2009
    The problem here is that we have to separate a bit the design of the RDF (what Zotero uses to import/export) from what you see as a user. This thread is more about the former.

    What I can say is that the current design of BIBO RDF has the following class hierarchy:

    + bibo:LegalDocument
    + bibo:LegalCaseDocument
    + bibo:Brief
    + bibo:LegalDecision

    So in other wrods, a bibo:Brief is also a bibo:LegalCaseDocument, which is also a bibo:LegalDocument, which is in turn a bibo:Document.

    Maybe we can first confirm that this makes sense (I hope so!)?

    BTW, BIBO documentation is here.
  • Gracile
    edited November 12, 2009
    Bruce D'Arcus,
    This discussion is really interesting. It's a pity that informations on zotero/csl/BIBO development are scattered in so many different places!

    I'd like to explain the viewpoint of a zotero beginner:
    I've discovered zotero and quickly tried to make a useful style for my work. It seems to me clear that stylization and item conceptualization are absolutely linked.
    As a lawyer, I'm really interested by the legal types (e.g.: case, hearing, bill, statute) and I've tried to use them. I've read many topics on this forum, or in the different development lists which are related to zotero (I mean csl/BIBO essentially). [I have to say that for a beginner with no real programming skills, it's not very easy to understand who (people) and what (csl/bibo/zotero) are doing what.]

    My attempts to use legal types did not really succeed. Mainly because legal types have been defined with prior attention to anglo-american legal system (and that sounds normal). Therefore, when using legal types I might decide to use a more general item (document, manuscript...) or to use fields in a personal way (I actually think that every zotero users are doing that: just an example with number of pages for books: it's advised on the forum to use the "extra" field for the moment).

    As far as I've understood, a new system based on "hierarchical relationships between items" will provide more flexibility to zotero. The Class hierarchy you've proposed seems good (with some (I think minor) adaptations for other legal system).

    But for a user and from a user point of view, is it a good idea to add to my library around 300 cases with an item which is not really adequate to my needs? My point is that I don't want to edit manually all the items in three months in order to make them compatible with the new standard nor I would like to re-think the whole style I've created...

    (I'm afraid I've not been clear - just tell me, i'll be happy to try again)
Sign In or Register to comment.