Citators of Pennsylvania*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNBOUND A Review of Legal History and Rare Books Journal of the Legal History and Rare Books Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries Volume 11 Number 2 Summer/Fall 2019 UNBOUND A Review of Legal History and Rare Books Unbound: A Review of Legal History and Rare Books (previously published as Unbound: An Annual Review of Legal History and Rare Books) is published by the Legal History and Rare Books Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries. Articles on legal history and rare books are both welcomed and en- couraged. Contributors need not be members of the Legal History and Rare Books Special Interest Section of the American Associa- tion of Law Libraries. Citation should follow any commonly-used citation guide. Cover Illustration: This depiction of an American Bison, en- graved by David Humphreys, was first published in Hughes Ken- tucky Reports (1803). It was adopted as the symbol of the Legal History and Rare Books Special Interest Section in 2007. BOARD OF EDITORS Mark Podvia, Editor-in-Chief University Librarian West Virginia University College of Law Library 101 Law School Drive, P.O. Box 6130 Morgantown, WV 26506 Phone: (304)293-6786 Email: [email protected] Noelle M. Sinclair, Executive Editor Head of Special Collections The University of Iowa College of Law 328 Boyd Law Building Iowa City, IA 52242 Phone (319)335-9002 [email protected] Kurt X. Metzmeier, Articles Editor Associate Director University of Louisville Law Library Belknap Campus, 2301 S. Third Louisville, KY 40292 Phone (502)852-6082 [email protected] Christine Anne George, Articles Editor Faculty Services Librarian Dr. Lillian & Dr. Rebecca Chutick Law Library Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 212.790.0219 [email protected] Joel Fishman, Ph.D., Book Review Editor Assistant Director for Lawyer Services Duquesne University Center for Legal Information/Allegheny Co. Law Library (retired) 921 City-County Building, 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone (412)350-5727 [email protected] Ryan Greenwood, Assistant Book Review Editor University of Minnesota Law School Curator of Rare Books and Special Collections Mondale Hall, 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone (612)625-7323 [email protected] 4 UNBOUND Vol. 11 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES Indexing the Records and Briefs Inserts at the Supreme Court of the United States Library 5 Joann Maguire-Chavez and Bill Sleeman Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Fifth Judicial District, Pennsylvania: A Prosopographical Study (1969-2008) 15 Dr. Joel Fishman and Sarah A. Steers BOOK REVIEWS 84 INDEX OF UNBOUND VOLUMES 1-11 (2008-2019) 89 Dr. Joel Fishman 2019 UNBOUND 5 Indexing the Records and Briefs Inserts at the Supreme Court of the United States Library by Joann Maguire-Chavez* and Bill Sleeman** Introduction In 2017 The Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.1 Like many cases that come before the Court the record for this case included numerous amicus briefs on various points of law but one of the more widely covered in the news was the submission by “cake artists” offered not in support of either party but which asked the Court to consider the question of whether or not the types of cakes produced by the complainant were art.2 Included in the brief of the “cake artists” were over a dozen photographs of art cakes to sup- port the contention that they were indeed art, and while these il- lustrations would not qualify as inserts for our project their pres- ence serves to demonstrate the prevalence of images of all types in the records of the Supreme Court of the United States.3 * Joann Maguire-Chavez, M. L. S., University of Maryland, 2002; B.A. The Cath- olic University of America, 1997. Mrs. Maguire-Chavez is the Special Collec- tions/Records and Briefs Librarian at the Supreme Court of the United States Li- brary. [email protected]. ** Bill Sleeman, M.L.S., The University of Michigan, 1984 ; M.A., The University of Baltimore, 1998. Mr. Sleeman is the Assistant Librarian for Technical Services and Special Collections. [email protected]. 1 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 584 U.S. ___ (2018); 16-111 (2017). 2 Wedding cakes can be stunning creations. But do they qualify as art? Roxanne Roberts. November 30, 2017. Washingtonpost.com. https://www.washing- tonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wedding-cakes-can-be-stunning-creationsbut-do- they-qualify-as-art/2017/11/29/7df64684-cb2a-11e7- aa9654417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.9ba130bfa095 (last viewed 02/06/2019). 3 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Brief for cake artists as amici curiae in support of neither party. 16-111 (2017). Page 12. 6 UNBOUND Vol. 11 No. 2 While the Court requires a documentary record when a case is granted review, attorneys appearing for oral argument are usually discouraged from presenting exhibit materials at argument. De- spite that discouragement though some areas, such as Intellectual property cases and particularly patent cases, often require special consideration and over time the Court has issued rules on how this material should be presented in the documentation:4 4 Historical Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.su- premecourt.gov/ctrules/scannedrules.aspx (last viewed 02/11/2019). 2019 UNBOUND 7 Rule 31 (1823) No cause will hereafter be heard until a complete record, containing in itself, without references aliunde, all the papers, exhibits, deposi- tions, and other proceedings which are necessary to the hearing in this Court shall be filed. Rule 26 (1941) All records, petitions, motions and briefs, printed for the use of the court must be in such form and size that they can be conveniently bound together, so as to make an ordinary octavo volume, having pages 6 1/8 x 9 1/4 inches and type matter … except that records in patent cases may be printed in such size as is necessary to utilize copies of patent documents… The option to present patent drawings in as full a form as possible continues in the modern day: Rule 33.1 (c) (2017) Document Preparation: Booklet Format: 8 1/2 by 11-Inch Paper For- mat. Copies of patent documents, except opinions, may be duplicated in such size as is necessary in a separate appendix. The Masterpiece Cakeshop brief was not the first time graphic im- ages or charts were submitted to the Court to help buttress a po- sition or to provide needed background information. Maps, patent drawings, architectural renderings, steamship timetables, tobacco containers, charts and graphs and even flour bags are some of the types of graphic and ephemeral materials that make up this collec- tion (hereafter ‘inserts’). Due to the varied physical nature of these inserts many are not included in the Gale-Cengage Making of Modern Law Records and Briefs Collection nor are the larger images - again with a few ex- ceptions - included in the West or Lexis collections of briefs. To illustrate this point the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Re- tail Druggists Assn., Inc.,5 which includes several maps detailing the placement of the various pharmacies at issue, was searched in several different online collections of Records and Briefs. The maps in the Abbott case offer researchers an important visualization of the impact and change in the local marketplace that is central to the case (p. 24 of the Respondent’s Brief, #74-1274) but the maps are not included on Westlaw, Lexis nor in the ProQuest Supreme Court Insight product. The entire case was absent from the Making of Modern Law database. The absence of the maps from the readily available historical record represents a significant loss of context 5 Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Assn., Inc. 425 US 1 (1976); Supreme Court of the United States Transcripts of Records and File Copies of Briefs, vol. 46 (1975) – inserts are filed in a pocket at the end of the bound briefs. 8 UNBOUND Vol. 11 No. 2 for the historian or lawyer seeking to better understand the histor- ical conditions for a particular case.6 The Library of the Supreme Court of the United States has over the past several years been engaged in a project to identify and index this material to improve access for the Court and for our research- ers. This article will briefly discuss the on-going indexing project, review plans for improved future access to this material for the Court and conclude with some examples of the types of inserts available in the records of the Supreme Court. About the Library: The Supreme Court of the United States Library’s primary mission is to assist the Justices in fulfilling their constitutional responsi- bilities by providing them with the best reference and research sup- port in the most efficient, ethical and economic manner. The Li- brary holds over 600,000 print volumes, 200,000 microform volumes and a wide variety of electronic resources. The collection focuses primarily on Anglo-American law and is rich in United States federal and state primary law and government documents, works on constitutional law and history, legal dictionaries, and British cases and treatises. The Library’s rare book holdings in- clude rich collections of early American printing compiled by El- bridge T. Gerry and an extensive collection of unique Court related titles. Central to the Library’s support of the Court is the Records and Briefs Collection. Containing opinions, briefs, transcripts, lower court records and oral arguments the collection is the most comprehensive archival set of these materials.