Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 20-24. 2009.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 21, 2009 Oscar Renda Contracting Inc. v. Lubbock, No. 08-10481 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant city violated the First Amendment by denying plaintiff a construction contract, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where not all construction contract disputes involving government entities or agents are matters of public concern.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 21, 2009 US v. Whaley, No. 08-10951 Defendant’s conviction for failure to register in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where SORNA does not exceed Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause because it forbids sex offenders from using the channels of interstate commerce to evade their registration requirements.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 22, 2009 Waeschle v. Dragovic, No. 08-2228 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against a county Medical Examiner for depriving plaintiff of her right to dispose of her deceased mother’s brain (removed in an autopsy and later incinerated as medical waste), denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where plaintiff had no clearly established property right in the brain because it was removed and retained for study in furtherance of a lawful criminal investigation Continue reading

by

As announced yesterday July 23, 2009, U.S. federal agents swept accross New Jersey and New York, charging 44 people (including mayors, rabbis and one alleged trafficker in human kidneys) of being involved in public corruption and international money laundering practices..

The following are links to some documents related to that two track investigation. For additional news and related information go to the U.S. Department of Justice website at: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/index.html

Statement: Two Track Investigation of Political Corruption and International Money Laundering

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

July 24, 2009
1. People v. Bright, 1010, 5732/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5607; 881 N.Y.S.2d 291; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5436, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), …

2. People v. Thomas, 985, 5090/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5636; 881 N.Y.S.2d 291; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5417, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County, (Carol Berkman, J.), …

3. People v. Coronel, 975, 9516/98, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5629; 881 N.Y.S.2d 293; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5414, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, …

4. People v. Deoleo, 979, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5632; 881 N.Y.S.2d 292; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5468, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J.), …
Continue reading

by

David Badertscher*

For almost forty years I have been in charge of law libraries. During that time I have acquired great appreciation and respect for the value and work of library catalogers. This posting is a small token of that respect and gratitude.

Have you ever wondered how all the information in library online catalogs, or OPACS is collected and organized in a way that makes it accessible and useful to us when we need it? As it turns out, the process of collecting–and especially organizing–this information and making it accessible to us is quite rigorous, involving complex, exacting standards and rules.

To perhaps oversimplify, cataloguing involves listing, analyzing, describing, classifying, identifying points of access such as subject headings or titles (access points) to the information being cataloged, and making any necessary preparation for user access from both within a library or through remote access from various locations, of knowledge based structured content (bibliographic content) associated with a library or group of libraries, all under the direction of specially trained professional catalogers. To ensure consistency and overall coordination of these processes both within and among libraries, it has been essential to establish well coordinated and agreed upon standards and conventions which catalogers working from diverse locations and organizations can rely upon to provide maximum benefit to us the end users.

For cataloging standards to remain relevant, they must take into account various factors including the preservation of the integrity and accessibility of the collection being cataloged, the mission of the organization housing or hosting the collection, needs and concerns of end users, and changes in information needs and cultural values over time. Depending on circumstances, such changes may necessitate either comparatively minor revisions or major revisions in order for these standards to remain relevant as the basis for effective cataloging. Judging from what I have read while preparing this posting it appears that catalogers have always been and continue to be very diligent and effective in this regard.

For many years the rules of cataloging have been primarily governed by a group of standards and rules called Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) and later AACR2 which is still being used as this is being written. Both AACR and AACR2 were designed to accommodate either hard copy (print or card catalogs) or earlier versions of computer-based or online catalogs. By the beginning of the 21st century it was widely recognized that either a major revision in AACR2 or a new standard that goes beyond existing cataloging codes was needed to provide adequate guidelines for cataloging digital resources, responding to the challenges of the world wide web, and to provide a greater emphasis on helping an increasingly diverse group of users to find, identify, select and obtain the information they need. After much discussion, consultation, and deliberation it was decided to go with a new standard called Resource Description and Access or RDA, which is scheduled to replace AACR2 later this year, 2009.

Why is this being discussed on a public blawg? Because we need to realize that although much of their work is behind the scenes and invisible to most of us, catalogers continue to play an important, critical role in enabling us to find the information essential to our going about our daily lives both at work and at home. Although search services are often useful, even vital, they are no substitute online catalogs when searching for bibliographic materials housed in libraries, groups of libraries or similar organizations. Cataloging standards can also form the basis for other forms of web searching. A prominent information consultant told me some years ago that he liked to hire catalogers for applications development in database and web searching because he found their training and expertise to be so helpful and effective.

To summarize, from all appearances cataloguers and cataloging continue to be highly relevant to our increasingly interactive and interconnected society with its growing information needs. But they need our recognition and appreciation for their many contributions. I hope this posting helps in that regard . Since this is a general discussion, I have left out many details of possible interest. To help fill in the blanks I have asked Joni Lynn Cassidy, President of Cassidy Cataloging Services to write her own article for this blawg. I am happy to report that she has accepted and we can all look forward to her forthcoming article.
_______________________________ *David Badertscher is the Principal Law Librarian at the New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library, First Judicial District in New York, NY. Although not strictly a cataloger, he is interested in technical services issues and is a member of the AALL TS-SIS.

For those who are interested in pursuing this topic further, you can click on the link below to see some of the sources consulted in preparation for this posting.:
Continue reading

by

Corey Rayburn Yung who teaches criminal law and procedure at the John Marshall Law School has posted a draft paper (Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals) on SSRN. Professor Yung’s scholarship is primarily focused on sex crimes and judicial decision-making. Here is an Abstract of the paper:

July 15, 2009

Abstract: Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals

Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

July 16, 2009:

1. People v. Ross, 678, 4397/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4164; 62 A.D.3d 619; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, …

2. People v. Boateng, 668, 380/06, 668A, 2434/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4157; 62 A.D.3d 614; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4052, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), …

3. People v. Glover, 109, 876/04, 110, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4168; 62 A.D.3d 626; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4053, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, …

4. People v. Frederick, 663, 6348/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4155; 62 A.D.3d 612; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4041, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, …

5. People v. Manrique, 674, 1575/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4162; 62 A.D.3d 617; 880 N.Y.S.2d 51; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, …

6. People v. Hogans, 654, 1437/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4118; 62 A.D.3d 595; 878 N.Y.S.2d 890; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …

7. People v. Nevarez, 630, 630A, 3633/06, 6046/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4104; 62 A.D.3d 585; 878 N.Y.S.2d 888; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, …
.
Continue reading

by

Can the offering of goods and services such as Google searches free of charge be considered in violation of antitrust? Many librarians have expressed an interest in this issue. They are concerned about what any resolution of this question wll have on their continuing efforts to provide knowledge based goods and services (including new and enhanced products) in an increasingly financially constrained environment to patrons with ever increasing expectations. They want to be informed about what the producers and providers they depend on, such as Google, are thinking about this issue? Hence this postingl

In a July 10 posting on the Google Policy Blog Dana Wagner responds to comments by Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine and author of the book Free in a piece Chris wrote for CNN and possibly to additional comments by Chris during his presentation at the Google D.C. office earlier in the week. In his D.C. presentation Chris explained how new business models and approaches to advertising will change the focus of global commerce.

What really seems to have caught Dana Wagner’s attention however is the following excerpt from Chris’s CNN piece:

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design