Skip to Main Content

Summer Research Bootcamp

Finding Cases

The use of print materials in case law research is in rapid decline1.  Many law libraries, especially at law firms, have disposed of print materials as their practitioners rely on electronic sources.  This isn't to suggest that print is no longer valuable for legal research2.  Even well into the 21st century, many lawyers continue to use print materials in their practice.  Additionally, many monographs and international legal materials are still only accessible in print format.  Electronic legal research requires digital literacy skills that may be challenging for some users.  Another concern may be restrictive licensing agreements.

Regardless, to find a case using a major research platform such as Westlaw or Lexis, you can enter the case citation if the case has been published.  For example, if you see a citation such as:

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

You'll see that this case appears in Volume 505 of "United States Reports" (U.S.) on page 833.  If you wanted to search for this case electronically, you can enter the stem of the citation (in this example, that would be simply "505 US 833"). 

If the case was not selected for publication, it may not be available on a major research platform.  In those cases, you may need to contact the court directly or use PACER (the electronic filing system for the federal judiciary) to acquire these materials.

1. Ellie Margolis & Kristen E. Murray, Say Goodbye to the Books, 38 U. Dayton L. Rev. 117, 126 (2012).  
2. Kimberly Mattioli, Access to Print, Access to Justice, 110 Law Libr. J. 31 (2018).
3. See Ashley Krenelka Chase & Elizabeth C. Barnes, The Road Oft Traveled: Collection Analysis and Development in a Modern Academic Law Library, 39 Collection Mgmt. ;196 (2014).
4. Mary Cheney and Heather Simmons, A Body Without a Soul: Why Print Still Matters in Legal Research, 42 Legal Reference Svcs. Q. 2 (2023).

Reading a Citation to a Federal Case

Here is an example of the various components of a legal citation adhering to the Bluebook citation conventions.

Party Names

Volume Number

Bluebook Abbreviation for Publication

Pages or Section Number(s)

Parenthetical

Brown v. Board of Education

347

U.S.
 

483

(1955)

Case Reporter Chart

There are currently three major case reporters for the United States Supreme Court.  You should cite the official reporter (U.S.) when the opinion appears therein.  Consult your Bluebook for more information about citing cases, or email a law librarian at lawlibref@ucdavis.edu.  For the federal appellate courts (e.g., Ninth Circuit), published opinions are located in the Federal Reporter - abbreviated as simply "F." followed by the series number (1-4).  Although there is a case reporter for the federal district courts (the Federal Supplement - abbreviated as "F.Supp."), these decisions are not binding precedent but merely persuasive authority.  

Court

Publication Title

Abbreviations

Notes
United States Supreme Court

United States Reports (official)
West's Supreme Court Reporter (unofficial)
LexisNexis' Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition (unofficial)

U.S.

S.Ct.

L.Ed.

For Bluebook purposes, cite to the official reporter (United States Reports) if the opinion is available there.  There is a significant delay between a slip opinion (the first published iteration of an opinion) and publication in the official reporter.  You need to cite an unofficial commercial reporter for recent cases.

Example:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965)
United States Court of Appeals West's Federal Reporter (unofficial)
West's Federal Appendix (unofficial)

F.

F. 2d

F. 3d

F. 4th

Fed. Appx.

Remember, while all US Supreme Court decisions are published, only a fraction of appellate cases are selected for publication.  The Federal Reporter is considered an unofficial reporter because it is not directly authorized by the court.  Yet its prevalence and use within the legal community have made it the standard for citing federal appellate court decisions.

Example:

Gallo v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Ariz., 349 F.3d 1169, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2003)
United States District Courts West's Federal Supplement (unofficial)
West's Federal Rules Decisions (unofficial)

F. Supp.

F. Supp. 2d

F.R.D.

These are trial-level cases that are used as persuasive authority.  They do not create binding precedent.  The Federal Rules Decisions reporter focuses on procedural issues.  

Example:

Buchanan v. Delaware Valley News, 571 F.Supp. 868, 871 (E.D.Pa.1983)

 

Mandatory v. Persuasive Authority

California Authority

Federal Authority

California Supreme Court

  • The California Supreme Court articulated its authority in the notable case of Auto Equity Sales.  Therein, the Court clarified that all its decisions on its state law are binding on all courts in California, as well as the federal courts, when they decide issues of state law.  (Auto Equity Sales, Inc., 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962)).

United States Supreme Court

  • On issues of federal law, the US Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country.  (Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 220 (1931)).

California Appellate Courts

  • Decisions issued by an appellate state court are binding on all courts in California on issues of state law.  (Auto Equity Sales, Inc., 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (1962))
  • On a question of state law, the decision of an intermediate appellate court is binding on the federal courts when the state supreme court has not spoken on the issue. (Six Cos. of Calif. v. Joint Highway Dist. No. 13 of Calif., 311 U.S. 180 (1940); West v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223 (1940)).
  • If appellate court decisions conflict, the lower court may choose between the conflicting decisions. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc., 57 Cal.2d 450, 456 (1962))

Federal Circuit Courts

  • Prior published authority is binding within the Circuit to the same extent as is US Supreme Court precedent. (Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001)).
  • “[T]he decisions of the lower federal courts on federal questions are merely persuasive [for state courts on a federal question]. … Where lower federal court precedents are divided or lacking, state courts must necessarily make an independent determination of federal law.” (Rohr Aircraft Corp. v. San Diego, 51 Cal. 2d 759, 764 (1959))

California Trial Courts

  • Trial court decisions are only binding on the parties before the court.  Trial courts do not create precedent. (King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 333 U.S. 153 (1948); Santa Ana Hosp. Med. Center v. Belshé, 56 C.A.4th 819, 830 (1997))

Federal District Courts

  • Trial court decisions are only binding on the parties before the court.  (NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of State of Calif., 488 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2007); Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 2033, fn. 7 (2011))

For a discussion about stare decisis within California state courts, refer to Chapter 13 of Witkin California Procedure.

Secondary Sources on Legal Authority