The [allegedly libelous] article alleged that respondent drank so heavily as to prevent her from fulfilling her professional obligations.
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984).
That 17-word footnote is the Supreme Court’s entire description of the article that gave rise to the cause of action in Calder v. Jones. The curious law student may wonder what the actual offending text said and why the plaintiff considered it serious enough to make a federal case out of it. The law student can find answers to these questions in Supreme Court Records and Briefs, a set of microfiche housed in the Richey Reading Room. While there are several online sources for quite recent briefs (see the end of this post), there are large periods of the Court’s history for which the researcher must turn to the archival microfiche set.
As its title suggests, Supreme Court Records and Briefs contains plaintiffs’ and defendants’ briefs for cases argued before the Supreme Court. It also contains complaints and other court documents.
Cases 1979 to Present
If the case is from 1979 or later, one needs to know the term in which it was decided. For example, Calder’s citation contains the date 1984. One would look in the microfiche drawer for the blue cards for a 1984 term, search the alphabetical list for the case name, and note the docket number. (Alternatively, one would be likely to have access to the docket number already, such as from the caption of the published opinion.) Then, one can look up the fiche by docket number.
When one views the microfiche, one can read the brief for Ms. Jones. In the fact statement, the attorney quotes part of the article’s offending language. The brief is also a good example of persuasive legal writing. The reply brief provides the counterarguments.
Cases 1974-1978
To find cases from 1974 to 1978, the process is similar. However, instead of searching through blue cards in the fiche drawer, one searches a print index. The print index consists of red volumes, which are housed on top of the microform cabinets.
Cases 1973 and Earlier
These cases are the easiest to locate. They’re simply arranged by U.S. Reports citation. For example, Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley is 211 U.S. 149 (1908). One would look for the 1908 fiche, and then search by citation. Citations are on the upper left corner of the fiche.
The older cases have a slightly confusing index. If one views the index, which is before the complaint and demurrer, one will see two sets of numbers. The numbers on the right column, marked “print,” correspond to the printed page numbers. The numbers in the left column, marked “original,” correspond to page numbers in the original record. These numbers are on the left side of the pages, and they look similar to paragraph numbers.
As one who just finished CORE 1&2, I read the briefs with interest. Mottley’s brief makes good use of headings, and concludes with an argument that appeals to the reader’s emotions. The railroad’s brief uses headings more sparingly, and the argument is very legal and impersonal.
Electronic Versions
Until June 30, 2012, the Law Library has a trial subscription to Gale’s Making of Modern Law databases, which include Supreme Court Records and Briefs. If you would like additional information about this trial subscription, please visit the library and speak with the reference librarian. (This is a different trial subscription than the one Judy Kaul described in her November blog entry, New Trial Subscriptions: Making of Modern Law. However, it is the same product, and Judy’s article contains information about the other titles that are part of this trial.)
There are several online sources for recent records and briefs: ABA’s Supreme Court Preview, Findlaw, Westlaw (password required), and Lexis (password required). (Cornell Law Library’s research guide has additional sources.)