4 ms·

According to one commentator, that's not the only error in the article; There are a couple of factual errors in this post: "When you further consider that in

According to one commentator, that's not the only error in the article; There are a couple of factual errors in this post: "When you further consider that in the course of prosecuting one's own court case, one must refer to many, many other cases because of the nature of legal precedent, legal research can suddenly cost thousands of dollars—and that's without even hiring an overpriced lawyer." Aaron misunderstands the nature of legal research. Legal research is done at the appellate level. In the course of prosecuting a case, legal research is necessary, but you won't be conducting legal research with PACER--it's not that kind of system. District court cases are not precedential with respect to other district court cases and it is rare that there is a usable opinion deciding the case. At the appellate level things are different, and there are both free and paywalled systems containing those precedents, such as Google Scholar (free) and Lexis/Nexis (paywall). Putting aside legal research, it is not impossible to follow a case from court to court. Upon filing a notice of appeal, a district court case will be given an appellate court number which can then be followed on the appellate court's version of PACER.

thinkcomp 14y ago
Hi, From what I've seen, research is done at all levels, though the higher the level, the more likely the citation. For example, district judges like to cite other district decisions in their same courts for routine boilerplate, such as the conditions when a 12(b)(6) motion is appropriate. I have conducted legal research with PACER multiple times in the course of handling litigation. One key time was when I had to look up ALA v. Pataki--a district decision--which has key implications in the FaceCash case because it deals with the right of states to regulate the internet. It never got to the appellate level, but it's the law of the land now. So I would disagree with your statement that "district court cases are not precedential," because they sometimes are. Many other times I wanted to see how particular motions were drafted in other cases (having never written them before), which is something that you can really only do if you have access to the PDFs of the motions themselves. Google Scholar does not contain district case dockets or documents at this time, though it is a great resource. LexisNexis is barely usable for novices, expensive, and simply not a realistic option for many people involved in litigation who aren't lawyers. Even though appellate courts obviously track cases with numbers, those cases are not directly linked from PACER such that you can follow a case backwards or forwards with one click. I've used these systems pretty extensively. I stand by what I wrote. Aaron
- pseingatl 14y ago
  District courts are not precedential. Not even appellate cases from another circuit are binding. Judges do not routinely cite other district judges when there is circuit law available. There is nothing wrong with using Pacer to learn about how motions are drafted and to take advantage of someone else's legal research. You can also examine case files for free at the courthouse or even the Federal Archives. Copies are expensive, but that's another story. You can stand by what you wrote but you have made a layman's mistake which is easily corrected. You should do so.
  - thinkcomp 14y ago
    http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/SupremeCourtDialogs/JudicialInterpretationDiscussionTopics/Precedents.aspx http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionRes... "Courts within a given District and Circuit are bound by precedents within their own Districts and Circuits, respectively." Also: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=10174094889155823351 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=101740948891558... I'm pretty sure I didn't make a mistake here.
    - pseingatl 14y ago
      In reverse order: Google Scholar does not have district court decisions, but these decisions are not precedential. Some, but not all of these, are published in the Federal Supplement series by Thomson-West. Most circuit decisions (but not all) are published in the Federal Reporter. "DO NOT PUBLISH" opinions are subject to special rules in each circuit. The decision of one district judge does not bind another district judge in the same district. In the Mariel Boatlift cases, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida sat en banc precisely to avoid the problem of inconsistent decisions. The decisions of one federal appellate circuit are not binding on other federal circuits. There are frequently conflicts, even amongst panels of the same circuit. These are first resolved by the circuit court sitting en banc to resolve the conflict. If there are conflicts among the circuits, these are resolved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take these cases and sometimes the conflict is resolved by Congress passing legislation adopting one circuit court's view over another. These are ancillary and non-essential points to your main argument, but are easily corrected. Pacer can be made better, (criminal cases are generally not included; why?) but lawyers simply do not need Pacer to research substantive or procedural federal law.
dctoedt 14y ago
> District court cases are not precedential with respect to other district court cases and it is rare that there is a usable opinion deciding the case. Lawyer and former litigator here. It's true that district-court decisions have the status of binding precedent authority only within their own districts. Such decisions, though, can be and regularly are cited elsewhere as "persuasive" authority. For example, in a California case, a lawyer might argue, in effect, "Your Honor, in a similar situation in New York, Judge So-and-So took Action X, for the reasons explained in her published opinion; we submit that you should take Action X too."
- pseingatl 14y ago
  I never said that district court decisions had no value; simply that you're not going to find them easily in PACER. And there's nothing wrong with citing caselaw in F.Supp.; but my point is that lawyers do not normally do case law research using PACER. The way the US legal system should work is that once the parties see that Judge So-and-so is right, litigation should cease, right? But it doesn't work that way. Especially at the federal level--if Main Justice doesn't like a decision they'll keep shopping until they get one they like--as will any other litigant who has to litigate in multiple jurisdictions. And my friend, since when do district judges follow the decisions of their district colleagues? Those decisions are only persuasive as well. Look at my SDFla comment. The only binding precedents are those from the Supremes and those that come from your circuit (or the 5th, if you're in the 11th and there's a need to cite a pre-1982? case). Or the Fed. Cir. for matters within their jurisdiction. Or the FS Ct., but now we are really far afield.
- pseingatl 14y ago
  Another issue is what happened to FLITE and JURIS--these were two USG systems that were set up to provide federal lawyers with computer-assisted legal research (as it was called then). I think the JURIS database eventually became available, but FLITE was shut down. In any event, most of this material is now outside the Thomson/West Lexis/Nexis paywall, but the current situation as I understand it is still far from ideal.

thinkcomp 14y ago

Hi, From what I've seen, research is done at all levels, though the higher the level, the more likely the citation. For example, district judges like to cite other district decisions in their same courts for routine boilerplate, such as the conditions when a 12(b)(6) motion is appropriate. I have conducted legal research with PACER multiple times in the course of handling litigation. One key time was when I had to look up ALA v. Pataki--a district decision--which has key implications in the FaceCash case because it deals with the right of states to regulate the internet. It never got to the appellate level, but it's the law of the land now. So I would disagree with your statement that "district court cases are not precedential," because they sometimes are. Many other times I wanted to see how particular motions were drafted in other cases (having never written them before), which is something that you can really only do if you have access to the PDFs of the motions themselves. Google Scholar does not contain district case dockets or documents at this time, though it is a great resource. LexisNexis is barely usable for novices, expensive, and simply not a realistic option for many people involved in litigation who aren't lawyers. Even though appellate courts obviously track cases with numbers, those cases are not directly linked from PACER such that you can follow a case backwards or forwards with one click. I've used these systems pretty extensively. I stand by what I wrote. Aaron

pseingatl 14y ago
District courts are not precedential. Not even appellate cases from another circuit are binding. Judges do not routinely cite other district judges when there is circuit law available. There is nothing wrong with using Pacer to learn about how motions are drafted and to take advantage of someone else's legal research. You can also examine case files for free at the courthouse or even the Federal Archives. Copies are expensive, but that's another story. You can stand by what you wrote but you have made a layman's mistake which is easily corrected. You should do so.
- thinkcomp 14y ago
  http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/SupremeCourtDialogs/JudicialInterpretationDiscussionTopics/Precedents.aspx http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionRes... "Courts within a given District and Circuit are bound by precedents within their own Districts and Circuits, respectively." Also: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=10174094889155823351 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=101740948891558... I'm pretty sure I didn't make a mistake here.
  - pseingatl 14y ago
    In reverse order: Google Scholar does not have district court decisions, but these decisions are not precedential. Some, but not all of these, are published in the Federal Supplement series by Thomson-West. Most circuit decisions (but not all) are published in the Federal Reporter. "DO NOT PUBLISH" opinions are subject to special rules in each circuit. The decision of one district judge does not bind another district judge in the same district. In the Mariel Boatlift cases, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida sat en banc precisely to avoid the problem of inconsistent decisions. The decisions of one federal appellate circuit are not binding on other federal circuits. There are frequently conflicts, even amongst panels of the same circuit. These are first resolved by the circuit court sitting en banc to resolve the conflict. If there are conflicts among the circuits, these are resolved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take these cases and sometimes the conflict is resolved by Congress passing legislation adopting one circuit court's view over another. These are ancillary and non-essential points to your main argument, but are easily corrected. Pacer can be made better, (criminal cases are generally not included; why?) but lawyers simply do not need Pacer to research substantive or procedural federal law.

dctoedt 14y ago

> District court cases are not precedential with respect to other district court cases and it is rare that there is a usable opinion deciding the case. Lawyer and former litigator here. It's true that district-court decisions have the status of binding precedent authority only within their own districts. Such decisions, though, can be and regularly are cited elsewhere as "persuasive" authority. For example, in a California case, a lawyer might argue, in effect, "Your Honor, in a similar situation in New York, Judge So-and-So took Action X, for the reasons explained in her published opinion; we submit that you should take Action X too."

pseingatl 14y ago
I never said that district court decisions had no value; simply that you're not going to find them easily in PACER. And there's nothing wrong with citing caselaw in F.Supp.; but my point is that lawyers do not normally do case law research using PACER. The way the US legal system should work is that once the parties see that Judge So-and-so is right, litigation should cease, right? But it doesn't work that way. Especially at the federal level--if Main Justice doesn't like a decision they'll keep shopping until they get one they like--as will any other litigant who has to litigate in multiple jurisdictions. And my friend, since when do district judges follow the decisions of their district colleagues? Those decisions are only persuasive as well. Look at my SDFla comment. The only binding precedents are those from the Supremes and those that come from your circuit (or the 5th, if you're in the 11th and there's a need to cite a pre-1982? case). Or the Fed. Cir. for matters within their jurisdiction. Or the FS Ct., but now we are really far afield.
pseingatl 14y ago
Another issue is what happened to FLITE and JURIS--these were two USG systems that were set up to provide federal lawyers with computer-assisted legal research (as it was called then). I think the JURIS database eventually became available, but FLITE was shut down. In any event, most of this material is now outside the Thomson/West Lexis/Nexis paywall, but the current situation as I understand it is still far from ideal.