Here is the latest faculty scholarship from the UW Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series via SSRN.

• Mobilizing Law in Contemporary Russia: The Evolution of Disputes Over Home Repair Projects by Kathryn Hendley

• Taking Great Cases: Lessons from the Rosenberg Case by Brad Snyder

• The Life and Times of the Big Six, or, The Federal Courts Since the Good Old Days by Marc Galanter

• Transnational Human Rights: Exploring the Persistence And Globalization of Human Rights by Heinz Klug

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 8:48 AM to UW Law School | Permalink | Comments(0)

From the Chicago Tribune:
Six finalists from a field of 11 applicants have been selected to fill a pending vacancy on a federal appeals court which handles appeals from Wisconsin and other states. Two of the six finalists are UW-Madison law professors Anuj Desai and Victoria Nourse. Read the article for the full list.

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 9:36 AM to Courts | Permalink | Comments(0)

Wow - big news last night from Google: Free case law is now available in Google Scholar!

There isn't much description yet from Google, but Internet For Lawyers has a nice run down of the features. Here are some highlights:

Coverage of the database:

• 1 US 1 (pre 1776)
• 1 F 2d 1 (1924 +)
• F Supp Cases
• US State Cases (1950+)

Go to the Advanced Search page to limit results to:

• all legal opinions and journals
• only US Federal court opinions
• only state court opinions (where you can select any combination of the 50 states and the District of Columbia)

Google Scholar includes the full text of the returned case and links to other cases cited in the returned case.

As cool as this is, remember that free is free and this isn't Westlaw or Lexis. There will be inadequacies of the search and coverage of the database. According to the 2009 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report "respondents are significantly more satisfied with the characteristics of fee-based online legal research resources than they are with those of free online legal research resources."
---------
Update: 9/23/09

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin has a good review of the ups and downs of Google Scholar's legal offerings.

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 10:24 AM to Courts | Permalink | Comments(0)

You never know what you're going to turn up in the Odd Wisconsin Archives. I had to laugh at the story about the "cache of decaying venison and sturgeon" stored a basement room of the Capitol wreaking havoc on the olfactory sensibilities of our distinguished lawmakers. And, funnier still, was that it was of their own doing. Brings new meaning to the contention that there's something rotten in politics.

In the early 1930s, lawmakers decided to hold wardens accountable for the proper disposal of confiscated animals. A new provision was inserted in the legal code requiring that seized fish and game be sent to the state Capitol. And so there a captured sturgeon was soon deposited, unpreserved, in a basement storage room.

Ever dignified, members of the Supreme Court initially ignored the stench rising up the elevator shaft from below. But as it intensified, the justices decided that laws about abating a public nuisance trumped those about confiscated game....

Many lawmakers were said to be so scarred by the stench that they swore off sturgeon altogether, even giving up caviar. In an effort to avoid another incident, the law was changed and conservation wardens were once again entrusted with selling confiscated sturgeon locally.

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 9:44 AM to Legislation & Regs | Permalink | Comments(0)

Google has filed a modified version of their controversial books settlement in federal court last Friday.

From the New York Times:

The settlement, of a 2005 lawsuit over Google's ambitious plan to digitize books from major American libraries, outlined a plan to create a comprehensive database of in-print and out-of-print works. But the original agreement, primarily between Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, drew much criticism.

The Justice Department and others said Google was potentially violating copyright law, setting itself up to unfairly control access to electronic versions of older books and depriving authors and their heirs of proper compensation.

The revisions to the settlement primarily address the handling of so-called orphan works, the millions of books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. The changes call for the appointment of an independent fiduciary, or trustee, who will be solely responsible for decisions regarding orphan works.

The Library Journal offers some additional analysis:

The one notable response to criticisms from the library community was an agreement that, as Google representatives had already stated, more than one free public access terminal per library building may be authorized.

The revised settlement also incorporates some other concerns raised by the library community and similarly interested parties. The settlement will allow for Creative Commons licensing, which means that rightsholders--notably academics--can ensure their works are available for no cost. And Google won't "provide personally identifiable information about end users to the Registry other than as required by law or valid legal process."

However, library critics were not pleased by the "vague--and, to critics, fatally inadequate--concession on orphan works. There was also no response to library concerns about pricing of the potentially monopolistic institutional database--an issue that Google representatives say can't be addressed in the settlement."

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 9:21 AM to eBooks | Permalink | Comments(0)

UW Madison News has a wonderful profile of Cecelia Klingele about her experience as a U.S. Supreme Court clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. A 2005 graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School, Cecelia returned to Madison this fall to start a two-year teaching appointment as a visiting assistant law professor.

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 8:43 AM to UW Law School | Permalink | Comments(0)

FantasySCOTUS.net is a new fantasy league that allows you to compete against your friends, colleagues, and adversaries to determine who has the greatest ability to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases.

The site is the brainchild of Josh Blackman, recent George Mason law grad and "big Supreme Court nerd."

The Rules are simple, say the FantasySCOTUS.net website:

For each case the Supreme Court grants cert, predict:

-The Outcome of the Case (Affirm or Reverse the lower Court)
-The Split (9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, 5-4, 4-1-4, or fragmented)
- The Justices in the Majority, and the Justices in the Dissent

At the end of the Term, the Associate Justice who predicts the most cases correctly will be confirmed as the Chief Justice of the Fantasy Supreme Court League, and win a to-be-determined prize.

Update: By popular demand, I am currently developing a League feature. Soon, users will be able to join leagues for schools, law firms, and other groups. Stay tuned.

Now you can play like the Tenth Justice.

Source: Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog See also WSJ Law blog

Posted by Bonnie Shucha at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments(0)