Announcements

The views expressed in the Legal Information & Technology eJournal are those of the contributing authors and do not imply the endorsement of the sponsor, advisory board, or editors.

The Legal Information & Technology eJournal is sponsored by the Academic Law Libraries Special Interest Section (ALL-SIS). The purpose of the Section is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and information on academic law libraries and to represent its members' interests and concerns within the American Association of Law Libraries. The eJournal is also sponsored by the Mid-America Association of Law Libraries (MAALL), an official chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries. MAALL includes members from academic, court, and law firm libraries in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.


Table of Contents

Fundamentals of Legal Research, Tenth Edition

Steven M. Barkan, University of Wisconsin Law School
Barbara Bintliff, University of Texas School of Law
Mary Whisner, University of Washington - School of Law

Antitrust Made (Too) Simple

Christopher R. Leslie, University of California, Irvine School of Law

Evidence and the Archive: Ethics, Aesthetics, and Emotion

Katherine Biber, University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Law
Trish Luker, University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Law

Testing the Geographical Proximity Hypothesis: An Empirical Study of Citations to Nonbinding Precedents by Indiana Appellate Courts

Kevin Bennardo, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Time-Mindedness and Jurisprudence

David J. Luban, Georgetown University Law Center


LEGAL INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY eJOURNAL
Sponsored by the Academic Law Libraries Special Interest Section of the American Association
of Law Libraries and the Mid-America Association of Law Libraries

"Fundamentals of Legal Research, Tenth Edition" Free Download
Fundamentals of Legal Research (Foundation Press 10th ed. 2015)
Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1347
U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 624
University of Washington School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-09

STEVEN M. BARKAN, University of Wisconsin Law School
Email:
BARBARA BINTLIFF, University of Texas School of Law
Email:
MARY WHISNER, University of Washington - School of Law
Email:

Fundamentals of Legal Research covers research methods and sources for United States law, with additional chapters on public international law and the law of the United Kingdom. This new edition continues the tradition of explaining and illustrated the standard sources, while incorporating new sources. Our goal was to make the content useful to contemporary readers who are familiar with online tools (and indeed prefer them) while also covering print resources sufficiently to ground students in the structure of legal authority and provide a useful reference for those needing information about print legal materials.

The excerpts posted here include the Preface, the Acknowledgements (listing the many librarians who reviewed and updated chapters), the Summary of Contents, and the first pages of several chapters:

  • An Introduction to Legal Research
  • The Legal Research Process
  • Communicating Research Results Through Writing
  • Topical Services
  • Electronic Legal Research
  • Native American Tribal Law
An abridged, softbound edition, Legal Research Illustrated, is in press. An accompanying workbook with exercises is being prepared by Susan T. Phillips (Texas A&M).

"Antitrust Made (Too) Simple" Free Download
Antitrust Law Journal , Vol. 79, No. 3, 2014, pp. 917-940
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-43

CHRISTOPHER R. LESLIE, University of California, Irvine School of Law
Email:

Robert Bork fundamentally changed the field of antitrust law with the publication of his book The Antitrust Paradox in 1978. The book’s primary themes were that antitrust doctrine should be concerned only with economic efficiency (which Bork termed “consumer welfare?) and that antitrust law had come untethered from efficiency. Bork championed per se legality for a variety of conduct, including resale price maintenance, non-price vertical restraints, and tying arrangements. He advocated greater latitude for horizontal mergers and complete immunity for all vertical and conglomerate mergers.

Now several decades old, Robert Bork’s The Antitrust Paradox continues to be among the most influential scholarship in antitrust law. Opinions differ as to the basis for Bork’s influence. Those who agree with Bork’s description of antitrust law and his prescriptions on antitrust policy would no doubt argue that it has been influential because Bork is correct on the merits. Some critics have suggested that the book’s influence stems from its circular reasoning, “which is its strength because circular logic is not rebuttable.? This essay posits an alternative explanation for Bork’s influence: even though Bork was largely wrong in his description and analysis of antitrust doctrine, he is influential because his explanations of complex economic phenomena were so simple.

This essay examines four issues related to the simplicity of Bork’s approach to antitrust law. First, it shows how Bork oversimplified the legal landscape of antitrust law, which he then used as a foil. Second, it discusses how Bork made sweeping claims based on weak evidence, oversimplified assumptions, and logical fallacies. Third, it hypothesizes why Bork’s views have been so persuasive to judges. And, fourth, it condemns Bork’s ultimate legacy — his attempt to thwart the evolution of antitrust economics beyond his basic model where all markets are efficient and antitrust law is unnecessary. The essay concludes that the greatest strength of Bork’s scholarship — its simplicity — is also, ultimately, its greatest weakness.

"Evidence and the Archive: Ethics, Aesthetics, and Emotion" Free Download
Australian Feminist Law Journal 40(1) 2014
UTS: Law Research Paper No. 2015/7

KATHERINE BIBER, University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Law
Email:
TRISH LUKER, University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Law
Email:

This essay engages with contemporary uses and considerations of the archive in interdisciplinary law and humanities scholarship, introducing the contributions the authors have selected to include in a special issue of the Australian Feminist Law Journal. Thinking of legal archives as both material and conceptual, it raises questions about researchers’ ethical, aesthetic and emotional relations with their sources. The authors identify some of the ways the archive is conceived in contemporary humanities scholarship and draw connections with material and conceptual approaches to law’s archive. In some contributions, legal sources are treated as a literal archive, raising questions about access, use and interpretation of archival materials. Other contributions engage with contemporary theoretical approaches to thinking archivally, involving processes of questioning, abstracting, and counter-archival imaginings.

"Testing the Geographical Proximity Hypothesis: An Empirical Study of Citations to Nonbinding Precedents by Indiana Appellate Courts" Free Download
90 Notre Dame Law Review Online 125 (2015)
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-19

KEVIN BENNARDO, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Email:

It is difficult to gauge with certainty what makes one non-binding judicial opinion “more persuasive? to a deciding court than another. Advice in this area comes mostly in the form of intuitive guesswork, anecdote, and hearsay. One oft-repeated factor bearing on persuasiveness is the geographical proximity between the court of decision and the court that generated the non-binding precedent. While instinctively attractive, this testable assertion has largely gone untested. This Article sets forth empirical research about the citation practices of Indiana appellate courts in order to test the proposition that geographical proximity bears on the persuasive value of non-binding precedents.

This Article analyzes the citation patterns of the Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals from 2012 to 2013. The research underlying this Article involved a study of 1324 opinions from that time period. In those opinions, the Indiana appellate courts cited to out-of-state judicial decisions 738 times. This Article analyzes those citations to test the hypothesis that state courts are more likely to turn to decisions of geographically proximate state courts for guidance when homespun precedent is lacking. The evidence points to the conclusion that, while geographical proximity bears on persuasiveness, it does not cross regional divides. In other words, geographical proximity is important, but works only within groupings of states with shared regional identities. This answer provides a window into judicial decisionmaking that should guide advocates when selecting among a wealth of non-binding authorities that could be cited.

"Time-Mindedness and Jurisprudence" Free Download
Virginia Law Review, Forthcoming

DAVID J. LUBAN, Georgetown University Law Center
Email:

Analytic jurisprudence often strikes outsiders as a discipline unto itself, unconnected with the problems that other legal scholarship investigates. Gerald Postema, in the article to which this paper responds, traces this “unsociability? to two narrowing defects in the project of analytic jurisprudence: (1) from Austin on, it has concerned itself largely with the analysis of professional concepts, without connecting that analysis with other disciplines that study law, nor with the history of jurisprudence itself, nor with general philosophy; (2) analytic jurisprudence studies only time – slice legal systems, rather than legal systems unfolding in history. He argues that a time – slice legal system is incapable of explaining the normativity of law. Postema recommends an approach to jurisprudence based on sociability with other disciplines, including its own history and general philosophy; he also recommends an approach grounded in synechism – Peirce’s label for the attempt to find continuities between seemingly – discontinuous phenomena. My comments are largely sympathetic to Postema. I show that his argument about the normativity of law makes the most sense if we embed it in a “meaning as use? theory of legal language and its conceptual content. I am more skeptical of synechism, which on its face rejects a perfectly valid and valuable historiography focused on discontinuity – the kind of history written by Kuhn, Foucault, and Marx. I show that Peirce’s argument for synechism fails, whereas Postema’s version of synechism broadens the notion of continuity to include what might ordinarily be thought of as discontinuities. On the one hand, that rescues Postema from the charge of ruling out valid approaches to history on a priori grounds; on the other, it makes Postema’s version of synechism less distinctive than he supposes.

^top

About this eJournal

Sponsored by: the Academic Law Libraries Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries and the Mid-America Association of Law Libraries.


This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts in all areas of legal information scholarship. Topics include (but are not limited to): 1) the impact of legal information on domestic, comparative, and international legal systems; 2) the treatment of legal information authorities and precedents (e.g., citation studies); 3) the examination of rules, practices, and commentary limiting or expanding applications of legal information (e.g., citation to unpublished opinions and to foreign law); 4) the study of economic, legal, political and social conditions limiting or extending access to legal information (e.g., trends in the legal publishing industry, intellectual property regimes, and open access initiatives); 5) the finding and use of legal information by academics to produce legal scholarship, by law students to learn the law, by attorneys in practice, and by judges and others decisionmakers to determine legal outcomes; 6) the history of legal information systems and technological advancements; 7) legal information system design and assessment; and 8) the relationship of substantive areas of law (such as information law, intellectual freedom, intellectual property, and national security law) and other academic disciplines (e.g., information science) to legal information. This includes the scholarship of law librarians, other legal scholars, and other academic disciplines.

The eJournal also includes working papers, forthcoming articles, recently published articles, and selected documents (such as White Papers, briefings, reports, course materials) on the practice of law librarianship. Submissions are welcome in all areas of law librarianship including: 1) administration, management, and leadership; 2) facility design and construction; 3) evaluating and marketing law library services; 4) all aspects of public, technical, and technology services; 5) collection development, including sample collection development policies and procedures; 6) electronic resource management and development including licensing, digitization, and institutional repositories; 7) research and reference services; and 8) legal research instruction teaching methods and substantial or innovative course materials.

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Legal Information & Technology eJournal

DUNCAN ALFORD
Associate Dean/ Director of the Law Library, University of South Carolina School of Law, Associate Dean for the Law Library & Associate Professor of Law, University of South Carolina - Coleman Karesh Law Library

BARBARA BINTLIFF
Professor, University of Texas School of Law

GEORGIA BRISCOE
Associate Director and Head of Technical Services, William A. Wise Law Library, University of Colorado Law School

PAUL D. CALLISTER
Library Director & Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law - Leon E. Bloch Law Library

MICHAEL CHIORAZZI
Associate Dean for Information Services, Professor of Law, Professor of Information Resources and Library Science, and Editor, Legal Reference Services Quarterly, University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law, Cracchiolo Law Library

RICHARD A. DANNER
Rufty Research Professor of Law & Senior Associate Dean for Information Services, Duke University School of Law

MARK ENGSBERG
Assistant Professor of Law and Director of Library Services, Emory University School of Law - Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library

PENNY A. HAZELTON
University of Washington - School of Law, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Library and Computing Services, University of Washington School of Law - Gallagher Law Library

MARCI HOFFMAN
International & Foreign Law Librarian, University of California School of Law Library - Boalt Hall Law Library

MARY A. HOTCHKISS
Director, Academic Advising, Senior Law Lecturer, University of Washington School of Law

RICHARD A. LEITER
Professor of Law and Director, University of Nebraska College of Law, Schmid Law Library

CAROL A. PARKER
Associate Dean for Finance & Administration; Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law

MARYLIN J. RAISCH
Associate Law Librarian for International and Foreign Law, Georgetown University Law Library

JANET SINDER
Library Director and Associate Professor, Brooklyn Law School