Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Restatements and similar documents can either be stored accessibly or rendered correctly but not both. #8

Open
dchawisher opened this issue Feb 15, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@dchawisher
Copy link

As the examples of the restatement sections in the Indigo Book/Juris-M integration show (especially the contrast between the Servitudes section, which has an article title, and the others, which don't), the Indigo Book citation style currently renders Encyclopedia Articles, etc., poorly. The colon between Encyclopedia Title and Article Title means that except for the Third Restatements, which have a colon in the restatement name, there is no good way to save restatement sections individually.

For efficient browsing of saved research, the thing to do is save the entire section title as the article title (e.g. "§ 410 Contractor's Conduct in Obedience to Employer's Directions"). But to render the citation correctly, one would have to omit the article title and either enter the section number in "pages" or else enter the section number as a locator when citing.

Three possibilities for fixing this by changing the Indigo Book style:

  1. Remove the colon between encyclopedia title and article title; render using the short-title field rather than the full title.
  2. Don't render the article title at all; use the "pages" field to store the section number.
  3. Do either (1) or (2), but for the legal-commentary item type; save items like Restatement sections, Am Jur articles, and CJS entries as legal commentary rather than encyclopedia.
@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

Could you give a link to the specific item you think is problematic?

@dchawisher
Copy link
Author

dchawisher commented Feb 16, 2021

In Rule 18.2 in the Juris-M/Indigo Book page, look at the three restatements. Compare the entries for the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers and the Restatement of Trusts with the entry for the Restatement of Servitudes.

A citation for the Restatement 2d Trusts should render like this: Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 46 (Am. Law Inst. 1959). To do that, the following fields are entered into Juris-M.

Encyclopedia Title | Restatement (Second) of Trusts
Publisher | Am. Law Inst.
Date | 1959
Locator | sec. 46
Position | First reference

Note that there is no article title, because the article title would be rendered after the encyclopedia title, like so: Restatement (Second) of Trusts: ARTICLETITLE § 46 (Am. Law Inst. 1959).

In consequence, if I save multiple restatement sections to Juris-M, it will look like this:
image

If you look at the metadata for the Restatement of Servitudes entry at the same link, you'll see that it uses a kludge to store an article title. The full title of the Restatement of Servitudes is "Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes," so the record stores "Servitudes § 7" as the article title. This is a bit more usable than having no article title at all. In the Juris-M interface, it will look like this:
image
But (a) it only works if the restatement title has a colon in it, (b) it doesn't allow you to see the actual section title when browsing your research, because that title would render along with the section number in the citations, and (c) it's a bit of a kludge.

The ideal solution would look like this: image

I am storing restatement sections as statutes for now because I am using a custom style that, by sheer chance, can render a restatement citation correctly if it treats it as a statute.

bwiernik pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 8, 2022
* Split ca cases and international ones

* Added "issued" as condition for parallel rendering

* update

* Added support for regulations
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants