Re: A Summer Associate Story

From: andrew johnson (tysonandrewjohnson@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jun 19 1999 - 01:47:31 PDT

Next message: Ron Huttner: "Re: A Summer Associate Story - Reply To Andrew Johnson"
Previous message: andrew johnson: "Re: A Summer Associate Story"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I can't argue with that. And in the original post, the number of cases
mentioned was in fact, two. My major premise involved searching through
many cases, not just two. I will agree that after becoming used to the
books, it takes no time at all just to pull them and copy them. In fact,
I prefer books to electronic media. (as an aside, I owe my entire law
library to the kind professionals in this forum!)

Thanks for your reply.

Andrew

On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:31:17 -0700 "Robert S. Ryan" <RRyan@HFBLLP.COM>
writes:
>This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
>understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BEB99F.9BB19270
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Andrew,
>
>You're right, it couldn't be predicted that the cases were short, but
>it
>could be easily ascertained by the expenditure of the 30 seconds I
>spent
>pulling them off the shelf and looking at them.
>
>Bob Ryan, Esquire (ret.)
>Hill Farrer Burrill
>Los Angeles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: andrew johnson
>[mailto:tysonandrewjohnson@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 9:32 PM
> To: RRyan@HFBLLP.COM
> Cc: law-lib@ucdavis.edu;
>PRIVATELAWLIB-L@lawlib.wuacc.edu; SLA-LAW@listserv.uh.edu
> Subject: Re: A Summer Associate Story
>
> I wanted to comment on the Associate's rationale.
>Rewgarding using
> Wexis, it is convenient to use your search terms as
>you read
>the case,
> because the terms you use are in bold. Therefore, all
>you
>have to do is
> to skim the text of the case, find the bold words, to
>see
>what that case
> says about your search terms. Although the two cases
>he was
>looking for
> TURNED OUT TO BE SHORT, this could not have been
>predicted,
>and would
> have saved the client billable time had the cases
>turned out
>to be long.
>
>
> On the other hand, here's where you lose by NOT using
>the
>books. There
> is only one part of a case that is binding...it's
>called,
>"holding." The
> search terms the associate finds may be buried in
>either
>dicta, opinion,
> reasoning, or factual analysis of the case. Here's
>where he
>had better
> not get confused...None of these things are binding.
>Most
>lawyers,
> including myself, readily point out when an opponent
>has
>cited dicta as
> if it were the holding of the court. It is easy to
>make
>this mistake if
> you are simply skimming the case for your bold search
>terms.
>
> Andrew Johnson, Esquire
>
>
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BEB99F.9BB19270
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
>5.5.2232.0">
><TITLE>RE: A Summer Associate Story</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
>
>Andrew,
>
>
>You're right, it couldn't be
>predicted =
>that the cases were short, but it could be easily ascertained by the =
>expenditure of the 30 seconds I spent pulling them off the shelf and =
>looking at them.
>
>Bob Ryan, Esquire (ret.)
> Hill Farrer Burrill
> Los Angeles
>
><UL><UL>
><A NAME=3D"_MailData">-----Original =
>Message-----</A>
> From:   andrew johnson
>=
>[<A =
>HREF=3D"mailto:tysonandrewjohnson@juno.com">mailto:tysonandrewjohnson@ju=
>no.com</A>]
> Sent:  
>SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Thursday, June 17, 1999 9:32 PM
> FACE=3D"Arial">To:     FACE=3D"Arial">RRyan@HFBLLP.COM
> FACE=3D"Arial">Cc:     FACE=3D"Arial">law-lib@ucdavis.edu; PRIVATELAWLIB-L@lawlib.wuacc.edu;
>=
>SLA-LAW@listserv.uh.edu
> FACE=3D"Arial">Subject:       =
> Re: A Summer Associate Story
>
>
>I wanted to comment on the
>Associate's =
>rationale.  Rewgarding using
> Wexis, it is convenient to use your
>=
>search terms as you read the case,
> because the terms you use are in =
>bold.  Therefore, all you have to do is
> to skim the text of the case, find =
>the bold words, to see what that case
> says about your search terms. 
>=
>Although the two cases he was looking for
> TURNED OUT TO BE SHORT, this could =
>not have been predicted, and would
> have saved the client billable time
>=
>had the cases turned out to be long. 
>
> 
>
>On the other hand, here's where you =
>lose by NOT using the books.  There
> is only one part of a case that is =
>binding...it's called, "holding."  The
> search terms the associate finds may
>=
>be buried in either dicta, opinion,
> reasoning, or factual analysis of
>the =
>case.  Here's where he had better
> not get confused...None of these =
>things are binding.  Most lawyers,
> including myself, readily point out
>=
>when an opponent has cited dicta as
> if it were the holding of the =
>court.  It is easy to make this mistake if
> you are simply skimming the case for
>=
>your bold search terms.
>
>
>Andrew Johnson, Esquire
>
>
>
>
></UL></UL>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BEB99F.9BB19270--

Next message: Ron Huttner: "Re: A Summer Associate Story - Reply To Andrew Johnson"
Previous message: andrew johnson: "Re: A Summer Associate Story"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:50:07 PST