Free Case Law

Search state or federal case law. You do not need to be a lawyer to register
or use the site.

http://www.lexisone.com/

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:51:30 -0400, "gini52" wrote:

http://www.lexisone.com/


It's a waste.

What jurisdictions it offers only goes back 5 years. For family law,
the best stuff is from the 1800s through the 1950s. Findlaw.com offers
far more. www.usscplus.com is excellent for U.S. Supreme Court, even
better than Findlaw.com. If you're serious about research and have
limited funds, check out www.versuslaw.com

Layne

"dani" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Gini52 wrote:
Search state or federal case law. You do not need to be a lawyer to
register
or use the site.

http://www.lexisone.com/



Hi Gnni -

How does that compare to FIndlaw? I always thought Lexis was pay. I
have found that Findlaw is really good.

~Dani
==
It is an additional resource, not intended to replace any other research
sites. LexisNexis is pay--
LexisOne is free.
==
==

"Tracy" wrote in message
et...
"dani" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Gini52 wrote:
Search state or federal case law. You do not need to be a lawyer to
register
or use the site.

http://www.lexisone.com/



Hi Gnni -

How does that compare to FIndlaw? I always thought Lexis was pay. I
have found that Findlaw is really good.


I wouldn't use Findlaw - period. Personally I go for the source - the
actual state laws.
==
This is obviously the first place to start. The problem with family law is
that
judges are given wide discretion and their decisions frequently bear no
resembance to the
statutes. So, after one researches the statutes, it is always wise to then
search case law to determine
how the statutes have been interpreted.
==
It isn't hard to find them. If anyone is willing to
help, I'll list them at http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/acs/ -
==
and I won't
charge anyone any fee for providing them with any information. ;-)
==
Not charging cash strapped NCPs for assistance is definately a good thing
:-)
==
==


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



--
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Opinions vary. You can continue to offer fluff and shout how statutes
have to be followed and about judges' wide discretion (a fallacy).
Those of us serious and competent about the real roots of these
problems know different.


On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:46:53 -0400, "gini52" wrote:


"Layne Barlow" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:51:30 -0400, "gini52" wrote:

http://www.lexisone.com/


It's a waste.

What jurisdictions it offers only goes back 5 years. For family law,
the best stuff is from the 1800s through the 1950s.
==
Best for what? Unless you intend to teach all new NCPs how to Shepardize,
old case law is worthless to them. Family law statutes in use today are
typically based on
1980s/1990s statutues--Going back 5 years is preferable than going back a
hundred years.
Current case law is always better than old cases that may or may not be good
law. How about
posting some recent cases that cite "stuff...from the 1800s through the
1950s."
==
==
Findlaw.com offers
far more. www.usscplus.com is excellent for U.S. Supreme Court, even
better than Findlaw.com. If you're serious about research and have
limited funds, check out www.versuslaw.com

Layne

"Layne Barlow" wrote
Opinions vary. You can continue to offer fluff and shout how statutes
have to be followed
==
When did I claim that "statutes have to be followed?"
In fact, in family court, statutes are secondary to "precedent"
(ie the judge's mood that day).
An NCP who arrives in the courtroom with 40 pages of handwritten notes
from his statutory research is likely to be swiftly blindsided by reality.
==
and about judges' wide discretion (a fallacy).
==
Perhaps in "Layne's World" (which is good for soapboxing but rarely useful
or practical in front of a judge--which might explain why you're
still in legal trouble after all these years). In the courtroom, judicial
discretion is alive and well. In fact,
if a judge has no discretion, there is no basis for appeal.
==
Those of us serious and competent about the real roots of these
problems know different.
==
Right--Whenever I think of Layne's World, I can't help thinking
"serious and competent."
==
==

gini52 wrote:
"Tracy" wrote in message
et...

"dani" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...

Gini52 wrote:

Search state or federal case law. You do not need to be a lawyer to

register

or use the site.

http://www.lexisone.com/




Hi Gnni -

How does that compare to FIndlaw? I always thought Lexis was pay. I
have found that Findlaw is really good.


I wouldn't use Findlaw - period. Personally I go for the source - the
actual state laws.

==
This is obviously the first place to start. The problem with family law is
that
judges are given wide discretion and their decisions frequently bear no
resembance to the
statutes. So, after one researches the statutes, it is always wise to then
search case law to determine
how the statutes have been interpreted.

A lot of times it seems that the judges decisions have no bearing on
anything other than the fact that they are afforded "wide discretion".
This seems to be most true in the cases of pro-pers. So, the real
reason or use for case law is in an appellate court, where it counts.
That IMO is the real court of law. The problem is, does everyone or
anyone have the resources, to get to that point or are they just willing
to settle with what they have and walk away hoping to get on with their
life and make the best of a bad situation.



==

It isn't hard to find them. If anyone is willing to
help, I'll list them at http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/acs/ -

==
and I won't

charge anyone any fee for providing them with any information. ;-)

==
Not charging cash strapped NCPs for assistance is definately a good thing
:-)

Definitely a good thing.
==
==


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



--
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

gini52 wrote:
"Layne Barlow" wrote

Opinions vary. You can continue to offer fluff and shout how statutes
have to be followed

==
When did I claim that "statutes have to be followed?"
In fact, in family court, statutes are secondary to "precedent"
(ie the judge's mood that day).
An NCP who arrives in the courtroom with 40 pages of handwritten notes
from his statutory research is likely to be swiftly blindsided by reality.
==

and about judges' wide discretion (a fallacy).

==
Perhaps in "Layne's World" (which is good for soapboxing but rarely useful
or practical in front of a judge--which might explain why you're
still in legal trouble after all these years). In the courtroom, judicial
discretion is alive and well. In fact, if a judge has no discretion, there is no basis for appeal.

I would say Gini hit it, right on. Judicial discretion is the problem.
Why would you consider it a fallacy, Layne? Almost, every statute I have
come across here in California, has something along the lines of, "in
the best interest of the children. . .based on judicial discretion". If
there ever was a statute that just nullifies itself, by those very
words, that would be it.

==

Those of us serious and competent about the real roots of these
problems know different.

I've been following this discussion on and off between Layne and Gini,
so I may have missed it, but I can't help but ask, "What are the real
roots of the problem, if not discretion? The statute's in my state seem
to be mostly fair, well thought out nad impartial. Yet, when translated
to the real world it turns out that if you are not the CP you get burned.

==
Right--Whenever I think of Layne's World, I can't help thinking
"serious and competent."
==
==

"dani" wrote

How is Lixisone any better or any different? I'm willing to learn.

Thanks.
==
Dani,
No one but you can decide whether Lexis1 has anything of use to you.
Click on the link and see. I didn't post the link to replace any other
resource so I
have no position on what is better. I simply view it as another resource,
FYI. Check it out
and then you can post a comparison/contrast if you wish.
==
==