Dates for law cases

CSL Development
1

Secondary materials and back-references are now pretty well under
control with the BB style, and I’ve started looking seriously at
cases. The first thing I’m having to face up to is the need for
several additional date tokens. Here is the list:

  • Date of filing (needed when citing a pending case).
  • Date of order (i.e. preliminary injunctions, sanctioning orders, etc.)
  • Date decided (this is in there, I think it uses “issued” under the hood)
  • Date of publication (for cases reported by newspapers – these
    shouldn’t be classified as newspaper articles)

What are the chances of getting these into CSL?

It would also be useful to have a “submission” field, for use cases like this:

Brief for Appellant at 7, Charlesworth v. Mack, 925 F.2d 314 (1st
Cir. 1991)(No. 90-567).

“Brief for Appellant” would fit neatly into that field.

Frank
.

2

I’m not sure that’s a “submission,” and I think that either “title” or
"note" or “genre” ought to work fine.

More generally, do I take it these suggestions are part of your “let’s
wait and see” message from earlier today (or yesterday for you I
guess)? You’d need to propose very general variables for these, and I
think some of the existing date variables ought to be relevant.

Bruce

3

Secondary materials and back-references are now pretty well under
control with the BB style, and I’ve started looking seriously at
cases. The first thing I’m having to face up to is the need for
several additional date tokens. Here is the list:

  • Date of filing (needed when citing a pending case).
  • Date of order (i.e. preliminary injunctions, sanctioning orders, etc.)
  • Date decided (this is in there, I think it uses “issued” under the hood)
  • Date of publication (for cases reported by newspapers – these
    shouldn’t be classified as newspaper articles)

What are the chances of getting these into CSL?

It would also be useful to have a “submission” field, for use cases like this:

Brief for Appellant at 7, Charlesworth v. Mack, 925 F.2d 314 (1st
Cir. 1991)(No. 90-567).

“Brief for Appellant” would fit neatly into that field.

I’m not sure that’s a “submission,” and I think that either “title” or
“note” or “genre” ought to work fine.

More generally, do I take it these suggestions are part of your “let’s
wait and see” message from earlier today (or yesterday for you I
guess)? You’d need to propose very general variables for these, and I
think some of the existing date variables ought to be relevant.

Yes, these are the ones. After I have thought things through and done
some trials at this end, I’ll come back with a more orderly set of
ideas.

In the sample “Brief for Appellant” cite above is already spoken for
(it’s used for the party names). A special field is the smoothest way
to handle it, because it requires a special pinpoint out in front of
the citation (“at 7”). A stronger objection might be that this is
really one for hierarchical relations (with documents like this to be
children of the case to which they relate).

In any case, I will try to keep within the current schema if poss.

Frank

4

Secondary materials and back-references are now pretty well under
control with the BB style, and I’ve started looking seriously at
cases. The first thing I’m having to face up to is the need for
several additional date tokens. Here is the list:

  • Date of filing (needed when citing a pending case).
  • Date of order (i.e. preliminary injunctions, sanctioning orders, etc.)
  • Date decided (this is in there, I think it uses “issued” under the hood)
  • Date of publication (for cases reported by newspapers – these
    shouldn’t be classified as newspaper articles)

What are the chances of getting these into CSL?

It would also be useful to have a “submission” field, for use cases like this:

Brief for Appellant at 7, Charlesworth v. Mack, 925 F.2d 314 (1st
Cir. 1991)(No. 90-567).

“Brief for Appellant” would fit neatly into that field.

I’m not sure that’s a “submission,” and I think that either “title” or
“note” or “genre” ought to work fine.

More generally, do I take it these suggestions are part of your “let’s
wait and see” message from earlier today (or yesterday for you I
guess)? You’d need to propose very general variables for these, and I
think some of the existing date variables ought to be relevant.

Yes, these are the ones. After I have thought things through and done
some trials at this end, I’ll come back with a more orderly set of
ideas.

In the sample “Brief for Appellant” cite above is already spoken for

Darn. Sorry about the type in the last mail. That should have read,
“In the sample ‘Brief for Appellant’ cite above, title is already
spoken for …”