Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

reh'g den TOC

Expand Messages
  • Mary%20Wendt
    Hi all I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season. I m finishing up editing a table of cases and there is an issue I keep putting off but must now make a
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 29, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all

      I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season.

      I'm finishing up editing a table of cases and there is an issue I keep putting off but must now make a decision.

      There is a case that is cited over and over - there is material on each state and it is cited in almost everyone of them.

      I have:

      Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
      Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007)reh'g den

      The (Fed. Cir. 2007)reh'g den seems wrong. Shouldn't it be (Fed. Cir. 2006)reh'g den? Nothing except the denial happened in 2007. The 442 F.3d 1345 case is denied rehearing and it is a 2006 case. Almost all the citations are 2006 but a handful are to 2007 - sometimes both on the same page so it seems like a distinction is being made.

      I found this site that says no opinion was issued but there are Judges' did provide written dissent.

      http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/zoltek-v.-united-states.html

      My feeling is that in the table I should combine them as Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)reh'g den.

      Yes? No?

      All help is greatly appreciated.

      Mary
    • maria@index-plus.com
      Hi Mary, This is what Westlaw is showing; KeyCited Citation: Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 442 F.3d 1345, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (Fed.Cir. Mar 31, 2006) (NO. 04-5100,
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 29, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Mary,

        This is what Westlaw is showing;

        KeyCited Citation:
        Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 442 F.3d 1345, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (Fed.Cir. Mar
        31, 2006) (NO. 04-5100, 04-5102)

        Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc Denied by

        Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 464 F.3d 1335 (Fed.Cir. Sep 21, 2006) (NO.
        2004-5100, 2004-5102)


        AND Certiorari Denied by

        Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 127 S.Ct. 2936, 168 L.Ed.2d 262, 75 USLW 3474,
        75 USLW 3660, 75 USLW 3661 (U.S. Jun 11, 2007) (NO. 06-1155)

        Hope that helps - this seems like a good question for the editor, as
        to how they want to handle that. Seems to me that they did a really
        abbreviated cite in the text and in doing so have caused some
        confusion. The rehearing was denied in 2006, but cert was denied in
        2007.

        Maria


        Quoting Mary%20Wendt <wendtindexing@...>:

        > Hi all
        >
        > I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season.
        >
        > I'm finishing up editing a table of cases and there is an issue I
        > keep putting off but must now make a decision.
        >
        > There is a case that is cited over and over - there is material on
        > each state and it is cited in almost everyone of them.
        >
        > I have:
        >
        > Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
        > Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007)reh'g den
        >
        > The (Fed. Cir. 2007)reh'g den seems wrong. Shouldn't it be (Fed.
        > Cir. 2006)reh'g den? Nothing except the denial happened in 2007. The
        > 442 F.3d 1345 case is denied rehearing and it is a 2006 case.
        > Almost all the citations are 2006 but a handful are to 2007 -
        > sometimes both on the same page so it seems like a distinction is
        > being made.
        >
        > I found this site that says no opinion was issued but there are
        > Judges' did provide written dissent.
        >
        > http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/zoltek-v.-united-states.html
        >
        > My feeling is that in the table I should combine them as Zoltek v.
        > United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)reh'g den.
        >
        > Yes? No?
        >
        > All help is greatly appreciated.
        >
        > Mary
        >
      • Mary%20Wendt
        Oh Dear! I m thinking I ll recommend: Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345(Fed. Cir.), reg den, 464 F.3d 1335 (Fed Cir. 2006), cert denied, 127 S.Ct.
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 29, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh Dear! I'm thinking I'll recommend:

          Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345(Fed. Cir.), reg'den, 464 F.3d 1335 (Fed Cir. 2006), cert denied, 127 S.Ct. 2936, (2007). At least it gives the user the full history but it sure won't match the text!

          I wonder if publishers ever have draft tables done early in the process. It has to be next to impossible to spot errors from page to page. It is common when putting together a TOC to find that numbers are wrong because of typos. You really wouldn't catch them in editing. If you're reading page 400 and the cite is 42 F.3d 999, you have no way of know that the cite should be 442 F.3d 999 until you merge the TOC.

          Thank you Maria!  



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: maria@...
          To: legalindexingSIG@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, 29 December, 2008 1:37:24 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
          Subject: Re: [legalindexingSIG] reh'g den TOC






          Hi Mary,

          This is what Westlaw is showing;

          KeyCited Citation:
          Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 442 F.3d 1345, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (Fed.Cir. Mar
          31, 2006) (NO. 04-5100, 04-5102)

          Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc Denied by

          Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 464 F.3d 1335 (Fed.Cir. Sep 21, 2006) (NO.
          2004-5100, 2004-5102)

          AND Certiorari Denied by

          Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 127 S.Ct. 2936, 168 L.Ed.2d 262, 75 USLW 3474,
          75 USLW 3660, 75 USLW 3661 (U.S. Jun 11, 2007) (NO. 06-1155)

          Hope that helps - this seems like a good question for the editor, as
          to how they want to handle that. Seems to me that they did a really
          abbreviated cite in the text and in doing so have caused some
          confusion. The rehearing was denied in 2006, but cert was denied in
          2007.

          Maria

          Quoting Mary%20Wendt < wendtindexing@... >:

          > Hi all
          >
          > I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season.
          >
          > I'm finishing up editing a table of cases and there is an issue I
          > keep putting off but must now make a decision.
          >
          > There is a case that is cited over and over - there is material on
          > each state and it is cited in almost everyone of them.
          >
          > I have:
          >
          > Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
          > Zoltek v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007)reh'g den
          >
          > The (Fed. Cir. 2007)reh'g den seems wrong. Shouldn't it be (Fed.
          > Cir. 2006)reh'g den? Nothing except the denial happened in 2007. The
          > 442 F.3d 1345 case is denied rehearing and it is a 2006 case.
          > Almost all the citations are 2006 but a handful are to 2007 -
          > sometimes both on the same page so it seems like a distinction is
          > being made.
          >
          > I found this site that says no opinion was issued but there are
          > Judges' did provide written dissent.
          >
          > http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/zoltek-v.-united-states.html
          >
          > My feeling is that in the table I should combine them as Zoltek v.
          > United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)reh'g den.
          >
          > Yes? No?
          >
          > All help is greatly appreciated.
          >
          > Mary
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.