Shepard's Citations

Shepard's Citations
Name	Shepard's Citations
Type	Legal citation index
Founded	1873
Founder	Frank Shepard
Country	United States
Language	English
Subject	Case law citator

Shepard's Citations is a legal citator system originally created in the 19th century to track the subsequent history and treatment of judicial decisions. It enabled practitioners and scholars to determine whether authorities remained good law by linking decisions to later cases, statutes, and administrative rulings. Over time it became integral to litigation practice, appellate strategy, and scholarly work across courts such as the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and state supreme courts like the New York Court of Appeals.

Overview

Shepard's provided printed volumes and later electronic databases that identified citing references for reported decisions from tribunals including the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and state courts such as the California Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court. Its pages listed citing cases, statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and administrative rulings from bodies such as the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Legal practitioners in firms including Cravath, Swaine & Moore, academic scholars at institutions like Harvard Law School and Yale Law School, and jurists such as those on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York used it to assess precedential weight.

History and Development

Frank Shepard, associated with the publishing world in Chicago, initiated the citator in 1873 to track citations to case reports like those in the United States Reports and regional reporters such as the North Eastern Reporter. The product grew alongside publishers including Commercial Law League of America and later corporations like The McGraw-Hill Companies and LexisNexis. Technological shifts—from penny paperbound volumes to microfiche, CD-ROMs, and online platforms—mirrored transitions at institutions like Bell Labs and companies such as IBM and Microsoft. Landmark moments included responses to decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States on civil liberties and regulatory matters, and adaptations following procedural reforms at courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Methodology and Functions

Shepard's methodology involved compiling citatory chains: identifying a headnote case and listing citing authorities including appellate opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, state appellate courts such as the Illinois Appellate Court, and administrative decisions from agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration. It assigned treatment indicators—signals of positive, negative, or neutral treatment—akin to editorial analysis performed historically by reporters at publications like the American Bar Association Journal and contemporary editorial teams at LexisNexis. Functions included flagging overrulings by courts such as the Supreme Court of the United States, distinguishing citations in opinions by justices like those on the Supreme Court of the United States, and collating citing references to statutes such as the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Legal and Practical Impact

Practitioners in firms like Sullivan & Cromwell and public defenders in offices such as the Federal Public Defender relied on Shepard's to preserve trial strategy and appellate briefs before courts including the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia. Academics at Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School used its citatory data for scholarship on doctrines influenced by cases from the Ninth Circuit or the Fifth Circuit. Judges from tribunals such as the New Jersey Supreme Court and policymakers at institutions like the Department of Justice used citation history derived from Shepard's to evaluate precedential stability and rulemaking impacts.

Alternatives and Successors

Competitors and successors emerged, including services from West Publishing (e.g., a citator), electronic platforms like Westlaw and LexisNexis, and newer tools by companies such as Fastcase and Casetext. Open-access projects associated with institutions like the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School and databases maintained by the Public.Resource.Org movement offered differing citation features. Innovations from technology firms such as Google influenced citator functionality, while collaborations with academic initiatives at Harvard Law School and University of California, Berkeley expanded access to case law metadata.

Criticisms and Limitations

Critics noted reliance on proprietary producers such as Thomson Reuters and debates involving commercial practices similar to controversies around firms like LexisNexis and West Publishing Company. Limitations included incomplete cross-jurisdictional coverage for tribunals like the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and variable editorial treatment across reporters such as the Atlantic Reporter. Scholars at Georgetown University Law Center and advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation raised concerns about cost barriers and the implications for access to legal information, prompting comparative evaluations with open projects at institutions like Princeton University and University of Michigan Law School.

Category:Legal research