A few days ago, we noticed an interesting story in the New York Times regarding the U.S. Supreme Court and the use of dictionaries. The Marquette Law Review, as cited by the article, released a study that found a significant rise in the number of times the Court cites to a dictionary. You can view the study on Westlaw at 94 MARQLR 77. The New York Times article talked to various law professors, lexicographers, and lawyers who looked with caution on this increase. One interesting quote is from a professor at Loyal Law School, commenting about how the press tends to influence dictionary definitions.

“It may also be a surprise to the Supreme Court justices who look to dictionaries as authorities in construing statutes,” Ms. Aprill wrote in the Arizona State Law Journal, “that in good measure they are interpreting law according to The New York Times.”

If you wanted to see U.S. Supreme Court cases that cite to a dictionary, try this search through the U.S. Supreme Court cases (SCT) on Westlaw:

american webster random-house black! oxford /5 dictionary

There are many ways to find definitions on Westlaw. We have the 9th edition of Black’s Law in the BLACKS database. There is also the Word and Phrases database (WORDS-PHRASES) which stores various definitions from cases.

If you wanted to search caselaw directly, there are two different searches that I like to use. First is the Words & Phrases field. If you put your search team in the WP() field, any cases that define that term in the headnote will appear. Another search is to try:

term word phrase +1 [search term]

Most courts will phrase a definition as “we define the term” or “the word [search term] means.” This search has been very helpful in finding definitions.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently ruled that online message boards are not similar to other types of news in order to receive protection under the New Jersey Shield Law. Read the case on Westlaw at 2011 WL 2184348.

Eugene Volokh’s brief review of our SCT-BRIEF database yielded just 7 amica curiae, that’s “amica” as in singular feminine for friend of the court.   Should we be changing the gender and number of the Latin word as needed?  Like other Romance languages, gender and case change word endings. I’m a little rusty on my Latin.  It’s been 11 years but I found my former Latin teacher.  He confirmed for me the endings for Amicus Curiae:

Singular Male – Amicus Curiae

Plural Male – Amici Curiae

Singular Female – Amica Curiae

Plural Female – Amicae Curiae

Thus, an amicus curiae brief filed by a group of female law professors would be correctly termed an “amicae curiae” brief. So, can this affect your research? Yes. A search of Amicus Curiae in the Document Title field in U.S. Supreme Court Briefs database returns over 20,000 results,  including both Amicus and Amici briefs.  When we eliminate the Amicus Curiae the search retrieves 6813 briefs that are titled Amici Curiae.

dt(“amicus curiae”) % dt(“#amicus curiae”) (6813 Docs)

Note the #-sign ensures Westlaw only delivers the plural.  Why not just run dt(amici)?  We wanted to test whether Westlaw delivered the plural on the latin. We discovered it does for amicus but not for amica.  What gives?  We’re reporting this.  For now, try:

dt(amicae amica +2 curiae): 12 results

There was some discussion amongst my colleagues why we couldn’t just have gender neutral terms, this being the 21st century and all. According to the Notre Dame Online Latin Dictionary, the word amicus not only has a masculine and feminine ending, but also a neutered ending. Therefore, couldn’t one use the neutered ending to create the following?:

Singular – Amicum Curiae

Plural – Amica Curiae

This would eliminate the need to switch endings depending on the gender of the person/people filing the brief.

A final option would be to follow the example of the Federal Government with its Plain Language initiative. This would entail eliminate the Latin phrase all together and replacing it with “friend of the court.” People wouldn’t need to worry about which endings to use and would make the law slightly more accessible to the general public. Of course, we would lose the beautiful language that is Latin.

Wow, that’s a lot of Latin discussion. I think I’m going to go read Iliad in the original Greek.

//

President Obama recently announced his intention to veto the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009. The act would make it easier for courts to recognize out-of-state notarization of mortgages and other financial documents. The problem is that there are questions about the legitimacy of some of these documents, so the President wants Congress to address these issues.

Instead of a traditional veto, the President intends to use a pocket veto. The pocket veto stems from the veto provision of the U.S. Constitution:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays   excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. (USCA Const. Art. I, sec. 7, cl. 2)

In this case, the Senate was the body that passed the final version of the bill. But while the House has adjourned until after the mid-term elections, the Senate will be opened every 3 days to prevent the President from naming a recess appointment.

So, is “the Congress” is adjourned?

The White House feels that it is a proper use of the pocket veto. From the White House Press Secretary’s Regular News Briefing, which can be found on Westlaw in the CQ Capital Transcripts database (FDCHCAPTRPTS):

Question: Robert, (inaudible) says it’s not appropriate to pocket veto, will the president just veto it then? We’re just getting some (inaudible) reaction from the Hill, so I’m just double-checking.

Gibbs: The president has — it’s my understanding from counsel, the president certainly has a constitutional — the constitutional ability to do that, and that’s what he’s exercising. 2010 WLNR 20039670

Simply returning the bill with objections would solve the problem, as would returning the bill to the House, which is adjourned.

For further discussion on this point, see the Congress Daily at 2010 WLNR 20068857

Because pocket vetoes are rare, there are few cases directly addressing them. On Westlaw or WestlawNext, simply do the following search in All Federal Cases:

sy,di(“pocket veto”)

If you would like to continue to follow the bill and its subsequent amendments, you can set up a WestClip in the US-BILLTRK database for “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009.”