Google has reached a settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers in two different law suits arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101. The suits were filed in the Southern District of New York on September 20, 2005 and October 19, 2005, respectively, challenging Google's plans to digitize and share copies and snippets of books without express permission from the author.  You can log onto Pacer to view the complaints and responses.  The password to Pacer is available on the intranet, under library database passwords.  

Under the settlement agreement, which remains subject to approval, Google will pay $45 million dollars to resolve existing claims, but it also will allow Google to continue digitizing books and inserts.  Read more about the future of Google Book Search, including options for accessing the resources.  Of particular note:

We'll also be offering libraries, universities and other organizations the ability to purchase institutional subscriptions, which will give users access to the complete text of millions of titles while compensating authors and publishers for the service. Students and researchers will have access to an electronic library that combines the collections from many of the top universities across the country. Public and university libraries in the U.S. will also be able to offer terminals where readers can access the full text of millions of out-of-print books for free.  

Law Professor David R. Cleveland has two new articles out on the status of unpublished federal court opinions: Overturning the Last Stone: The Final Step in Returning Precedential Status to All Opinions, 10 J.App.Prac. & Process ___ (2009)[SSRN] and Draining the Morass: Ending the Jurisprudentially Unsound Unpublication System, 92 Marq. L. Rev. ___ (2009)[SSRN].  Special thanks to the Law Librarian's Blog for its posting on this topic, which includes an interview with Professor Cleveland here.

For the status of unpublished state court opinions, one useful source is: Melissa M. Serfass and Jessie Wallace Cranford, FEDERAL AND STATE COURT RULES GOVERNING PUBLICATION AND CITATION OF OPINIONS: AN UPDATE, 6 J. App. Prac. & Process 349 (2004).  The source is a little dated, but relatively easy to update on your own.

Fascinating special issue of the journal Parliamentary History is out.  Issue 2 of volume 27 contains texts and studies relating to Parliament in the long 15th century.  Articles cover Parliamentary privilege, elections, payment, and other issues.  Three appendices cover a calendar of disputes over wages, a list of peers and members of the commons mentioned in the documents, and and a list of parliaments from 1376-1514.

This period includes the period of the devestation and depopulation relating to the Black Death, the War of the Roses, and the rise of the Tudors.

The Federal Judicial Center has published a guide, Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting Conventions: A Primer for Judges.  Available from here, this guide describes the statutory framework of federal law to assist judges with statutory interpretation.

Hmm, the Chief Justice isn't so enamored with the Internet on online research.  The Des Moines Register quotes Chief Justice Roberts as saying that "[t]he Internet is a powerful tool that nonetheless threatens to undermine the critical thinking and research skills lawyers need to effectively argue a case".  What do you think?  Are you able to research online, does the lack of a structure that the print imposes a help or a hinderance?