Bob Krauss’ Early Hawaii Newspaper Research Index

The Hawaiian and Pacific Collections at the UHM Library have made the Bob Krauss Research Index available online at http://manoa.hawaii.edu/hawaiiancollection/krauss.

About the Bob Krauss Research IndexBob Krauss (1924-2006) wrote for the Honolulu Advertiser for fifty five years, from 1951 through 2006. One of his research strategies was to review older newspapers on microfilm and to take notes on index cards. Over time these cards came to fill 22 card file drawers, stored front and center on Krauss’s office desk.

The newspapers Krauss turned to were:

the Honolulu Advertiser and its predecessor the Pacific Commercial Advertiser (published since 1856)
the Honolulu Star-Bulletin (published under various titles since 1870)
the Polynesian, (1840-1841, 1844-1864)

To a lesser degree, Krauss also indexed other publications, and information he gathered through personal interviews and correspondence. He annotated most of his index entries with notes and explanations that provide context and information not typically found in formal newspaper indexes.

The index is by no means comprehensive in subject or time coverage. It largely reflects Krauss’s research interests. Nonetheless it provides critical starting points into Hawaiʻi’s newspaper literature, covering periods of time and subjects in newspaper titles that have been formally indexed nowhere else.

Sniffing Out Dog Law

A new article on LLRX features select studies, standards and resources about canine scent detection evidence.  Included here is an annotated, linked bibliography to resources online about dogs and forensic science, resource libraries on dogs, standards and legal research.

Court Listener – Alerts From Circuit Courts of Appeal

A free, open source tool designed to alert you to new decisions from the 13 federal circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme court is available on CourtListener.com.  Given that this is an archive that seeks to inform one of new decisions, it is the recentness of the opinions that is important.

Precedential/published documents

Court	Number of documents	Earliest document	Notes
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	78	2/10/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	432	4/8/2003	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit	49	7/2/2009	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	34	3/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	10,176	5/14/1992	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit	62	3/16/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	114	3/15/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit	112	3/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	139	3/10/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit	50	3/16/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	7,392	12/9/1994	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit	31	3/13/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit	127	12/15/2009	No known gaps
Supreme Court of the United States	60,897		No known gaps

Non-precedential/unpublished documents

Including Supreme Court Opinions Relating to Orders and In-Chambers Opinions

Court	Number of documents	Earliest document	Notes
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	25	2/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	1,117	4/18/2003	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit	226	3/29/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	470	3/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	41,559	11/13/1992	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit	81	3/15/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	78	3/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit	157	3/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	319	4/12/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit	189	3/11/2010	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	9,670	4/18/2005	No known gaps
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit	183	12/14/2009	No known gaps
Supreme Court of the United States	59	10/7/2005	No known gaps

Health Care Reform Bill

News release: “The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) has made available the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this past weekend in electronic form. The House floor debate leading up to the passage of the bill can be found in the Congressional Record. The authentic, electronic versions are available on GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys)…GPO authenticated the document by digital signature. This signature assures the public that the document has not been changed or altered. A digital signature, viewed through the GPO Seal of Authenticity, verifies the document’s integrity and authenticity.” Direct links:

• H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• H.R. 4872, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
• Direct links to Congressional Record containing the debate and vote are here, here and here.

Justice Stevens, Babe Ruth, & Pearl Harbor

The March 22, 2010, edition of The New Yorker features a profile of Justice Stevens written by Jeffrey Toobin.  Toobin characterizes Stevens’s view of the Constitution as holistic, gradualist, inclusive, and broadly sourced most often realized in important cases as dissenting opinions.  There are interesting tidbits about Justice Stevens’ life including attending Game Three of the 1932 World Series where Babe Ruth hit a home run to the spot he pointed.  Stevens served in the Navy as a cryptologist and was stationed at Pearl Harbor.  He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Gerald R. Ford, a Republican, in 1975.  He plans to retire in the next three years, which will give President Obama, a Democrat, the privilege of nominating his replacement. A new biography by Bill Barnhart and Gene Schlickman entitled ‘John Paul Stevens: An Independent Life’ will be published in May.

Google Book Search Case – Possible Outcomes Flowchart

Jonathan Band, a specialist in technology law and policy, has created a flowchart of possible paths the Feb. 18th fairness hearing on the revised settlement in the Google Books lawsuit.  Depending on what Judge Chin decides, the “GBS March Madness: Paths Forward for the Google Books Settlement”  chart lays out a many-branched tree of appeals or litigation, all the way up to the Supreme Court.  We must now wait for word from Denny Chin, the federal judge in charge of the case.

http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/gbs-march-madness-diagram-final.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Copyright, Franchisee Rights, & Violent Felony

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided three cases:

• Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, No. 08-103. The Copyright Act’s provision that generally prohibits a potential plaintiff from bringing a suit for copyright infringement unless the copyright has been preregistered or registered, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), does not deprive federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate infringement claims involving unregistered works. The provision “imposes a precondition to filing a claim that is not clearly labeled jurisdictional, is not located in a jurisdiction-granting provision, and admits of congressionally authorized exceptions.”  Justice Thomas writes for the majority.

• Mac’s Shell Service Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co., No. 08-240. A franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act if the franchisor’s allegedly wrongful conduct did not force the franchisee to abandon its franchise, nor can a franchisor who reluctantly signed a franchise renewal agreement “under protest” assert a claim for unlawful nonrenewal under the statute. The preemptive scope of the PMPA is limited, and “franchisees can still rely on state-law remedies to address wrongful franchisor conduct that does not have the effect of ending the franchise.” Justice Alito writes the unanimous opinion.

• Johnson v. United States, No. 08-6925. A state offense of battery that can be committed by merely “actually and intentionally touching” someone is not a “crime of violence” that can serve as a predicate for enhanced sentencing under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1)).  Justice Scalia writes for the majority.

More at these resources:

• BNA’s U.S. Law Week
• SCOTUSblog

---

The Law Library at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii makes this resource and many others available to faculty, students and staff of the Law School and to other patrons visiting the Law Library.

U.S. Supreme Court Finds “Break in Custody” Exception to Miranda

The U.S. Supreme Court decided the following case today:

• Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-680. The interrogation rule of Edwards v. Arizona that, once a suspect in custody has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to the presence of counsel, any subsequent waiver of that right is presumed involuntary unless the suspect himself reinitiated questioning, is limited. This presumption of coercion dissipates once there has been at least a two-week break in “Miranda custody.” Additionally, a suspect who was already serving time for another offense experienced a break in Miranda custody when he was released back into the general prison population; therefore, the police were not prohibited by the Edwards rule from initiating further questioning at the prison years later.  Read more on  BNA U.S. Law Week.
• SCOTUSblog reports that the decision in Shatzer was unanimous and recognizes “an exception to the 1981 decision in Edwards v. Arizona, and now establishes that a “break in custody” permits the police to resume questioning a suspect who had previously asked for a lawyer. Furthermore, seven members of the Court rule that if the break in custody lasts more than two weeks between interrogations, the Edwards decision does not apply to suppress a confession.”

---

The Law Library at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii makes this resource and many others available to faculty, students and staff of the Law School and to other patrons visiting the Law Library.

The “Nerve Center” of a Business & Miranda Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases today:

• Hertz Corp. v. Friend, No. 08-1107. For purposes of the federal diversity jurisdiction statute at 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1), a corporation’s “principal place of business” is where a “corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities,” sometimes called the corporation’s “nerve center,” which is typically the corporation’s headquarters. The diversity jurisdictional statute specifies that a corporation has citizenship in the state in which it has its principal place of business, as well as its state of incorporation.
• Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175. A police officer’s explanation to a suspect prior to custodial interrogation that he had a right to talk to a lawyer before answering questions, and that he could use any of his rights at any time during the interview, satisfied Miranda v. Arizona even though the officer did not expressly state that the defendant was entitled to have the lawyer present during questioning. The court also decided that the contrary ruling of the Florida Supreme Court below was not based on an “adequate and independent state ground” just because that court said its ruling was based on the state constitution as well as Miranda.

Read more on U.S. Law Week and SCOTUSblog

10th Amendment: State Resolutions Warning to Feds

The federal government is a government of limited powers as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.  The remaining powers belong to the states or the people.  Or so says the 10th Amendment:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  So why are states across the nation adopting resolutions affirming the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?  Today’s Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported on the trend.  According to the website, Tenth Amendment Center, “[t]hese non-binding resolutions, often called ‘state sovereignty resolutions’ do no carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state.”  They serve as “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.”