C ONCLUSION

[T]he Law . . . should be accessible to every man and at all times.450

Franz Kafka

Courts in this country have two jobs: to say “what the law is” and to disseminate those sayings to the citizenry.451 _{Those say-} ings on what the law is should be made available to the bench, bar, and public at little or no cost. The dissemination of this in- formation should not be limited via either copyright law or ex- clusive contracts. Nevertheless, this is currently the state of case law dissemination in the United States, even though such a pol- icy is at odds with both 150 years of court precedent and at least one state constitution.

However, the ascendance of new information technologies, in particular the Internet and CD-ROMs, is having a radical effect upon the way information is disseminated. Court opinions are quickly finding their way onto both the Internet as well as the CD-ROMs of small publishers who have neither copyright claims nor contractual agreements with particular jurisdictions. Current court rules of citation lag far behind this technological revolution, generally permitting citation only to the print reporters of a pri- vate legal publisher that asserts copyright in the page numbers of those volumes. While this claim seems spurious in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Feist, it nonetheless continues to re- strict the sound public policy of maximum access to the law by both discouraging competitors from entering the legal publishing market and keeping the price of access artificially high.

The print medium, however, is no longer the primary means via which the legal researcher accesses court opinions. Recogniz- ing this fact, several organizations have proposed a new citation form that is independent of both vendor and medium formats. The implementation of the new format requires little or nothing in the way of extra court resources. Indeed, its success would be assured if each jurisdiction began maintaining its own authorita- tive electronic databases of court opinions. Therefore, the judici- ary should move immediately to adopt a uniform system of cita-

Apr. 17, 1996, available at http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/0418interactive.html (Aug. 16, 1996).

450. KAFKA, supra note 1, at 213.

451. The judiciary is the third branch of the government, and “governments have a duty to disseminate government information to their citizens.” AALL CITATION REPORT,

tion that denominates opinions by the year and sequential order of release, and that provides for precise location markers within each opinion via the use of paragraph numbers.

APPENDIX

U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB (AUG. 1996)

Court World Wide Web URL EarliestDate of Opinion D.C. Cir. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/cadc.html Mar. 95 1st Cir. http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit Nov. 95 2d Cir. http://www.law.pace.edu/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit.html Sep. 95 3d Cir. http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/ca03.html May 94 4th Cir. http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit Jan. 95 5th Cir. http://www.law.utexas.edu/us5th/us5th.html Nov. 92 6th Cir. http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit Jan. 95 7th Cir. http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit Aug. 95 8th Cir. http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir/ Oct. 95 9th Cir. http://www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Ct/ca09.html June 95 10th Cir. http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit Aug. 95 11th Cir. http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit Nov. 94 Fed. Cir. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/cafed.html Aug. 95

STATE SUPREME COURTS ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB (AUG. 1996)

Court World Wide Web URL EarliestDate of Opinion Alaska† _{http://www.touchngo.com/sp/sp.htm Jan. 91}

Ark.† _{http://www.state.ar.us/supremecourt/opinions/sc1996.htm Jan. 96}

Florida http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~lawinfo/flsupct/index.html Sep. 95 Idaho† _{http://www.state.id.us/judicial/scopins.html Dec. 95}

Indiana† _{http://www.law.indiana.edu/law/incourts/incourts.html Jan. 95}

Mass.† _{http://www.lweekly.com/wm/lw/page/lw/sjc Apr. 96}

Michigan http://www.umich.edu/~icle/misupct/index.htm Oct. 95 Minn.† _{http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/sc/current/sccur.html May 96}

Miss.† _{http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/case.html Feb. 96}

Missouri http://www.state.mo.us/sca/mosupct.htm Feb. 95 N.H. http://www.state.nh.us/courts/supreme/opinions.htm Nov. 95 N.Y. http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/ny/ctap/overview.html Jan. 92 N.C.† _{http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/courts/appeals/sc/contents.html Dec. 95}

Ohio http://www.sconet.ohio.gov/ May 92 Tenn.† _{http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/oplsttsc.htm Aug. 95}

Vermont gopher://dol.state.vt.us:70/11GOPHER_ROOT3%3A%5BSUPCT%5D Aug. 91 Wash.† _{http://www.wa.gov/courts/opinpage/home.htm Mar. 96}

Wis.† _{http://www.wisbar.org/Wis/index.html Oct. 95}

Wyo. http://courts.state.wy.us/opinion.htm Jan. 96