Mycase - Ebook - Guide To Using Google Scholar Ebook PDF

GUIDE TO USING
Google Scholar
AND OTHER FREE LEGAL RESEARCH TOOLS
CH A R I T Y A N A S TA SIO
Guide to Using Google Scholar and Other Free Legal Research Tools 1
Index
Google Scholar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State Court Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Bar Association Legal Research Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Findlaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The PLoL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Casetext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Introduction
There is a growing debate about whether lawyers should pay for legal research. Certainly
there are more free legal materials, including case law and statutes, available on the Internet
than ever before. But whether it’s possible to completely replace LexisNexis or Westlaw Next
with one or more of these free online legal research options depends on your practice areas and
the frequency with which you use different types of legal resources.
There are a number of factors that will affect your choice of platform(s). Lawyers who handle
certain practice areas merely need to stay up to date on statutes while others often cite case
law and are in court on a daily basis. The laws relied upon in some practice areas or jurisdictions
seem to be fixed in stone while others are rapidly changing. And last, but not least, a cost benefit
analysis needs to come into play. If the amount of work required to access the right cases and
case treatment can be cut in half by using a paid product rather than a free one, it may very well
be worth it.
More often than not, lawyers use some mixed form of free and paid legal research. One lawyer
may start on Google Scholar to get the lay of the land, then move on to Lexis once ready to look
for the most current case law and check case treatment. Some very nimble, smart lawyers who
are just starting out and keeping their overhead to a minimum will use whatever platform is
available at the library for a certain time until they can clearly identify that the return on their
investment would be worth it and appropriate for the tasks they need to accomplish.
The bottom line: 21st century lawyers have lots of options when it comes to legal research. Read
on to learn about free options like Google Scholar and, depending on your firm’s needs, the
added benefits of using paid platforms.
1. Google Scholar
The Google interface is a familiar one to most of us. In fact, it’s the preferred search interface for
most people, since Google uses instinctual methods and an intuitive user interface. For that reason,
the move to Google Scholar is often an easy one.
Another Google Scholar benefit is that Google’s algorithms are always evolving and improving. The
infrastructure and money Google invests into improvements in other areas of search no doubt result
in better legal search results as well.
While legal research is not Google’s only business, access to information is. Google’s mission
statement is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” And
it’s free. If you’re not already using Google’s legal research platform, you should make a point to
investigate it first and then make an educated decision based on your experiences if you decide to
rule it out as a viable research option. I think you’ll find after conducting due diligence that Google
Scholar a powerful legal research tool, but it’s not without its limitations.
The Disclaimer
What Google says about Google Scholar:
Google Scholar was originally designed for researchers and scholars who were performing
intellectual work. It is generated by search robots, or spiders, which scan the Internet for important
content and log it into the vast index that is the Google artificial intelligence machine. But keep in
mind that Google Scholar does not cover every topic or include every document.
Since the last update, here is what Google Scholar currently covers:
• United States State Appellate and Supreme Court cases since 1950
• United State Federal District, Appellate, Tax, and Bankruptcy Court cases since 1923
• United State Supreme Court cases since 1791
• Citations for cases cited by indexed academic articles that may help locate older or
international influential cases not yet publicly available.
The deciding factor that may rule out Google Scholar for many attorneys may be how infrequently
its database is updated. Updates to some records sometimes take between six months to a year, in
large part because the search engine spiders must re-crawl the Internet—the source for all of this
information—and some websites do not permit a very rapid crawl rate.
Searching Google Scholar for Cases
Google Scholar: Visit Google Scholar’s main page. Beneath the familiar Google search bar you’ll see
that there are a number of options. Select “Case Law” instead of “Articles” (unless, of course, you’ll be
searching for articles).
If you select case law, you’ll then be prompted to narrow your search parameters to federal courts
or a particular state court (Google will default to the state in which your IP address originates). While
this is the default, a full list of state courts can be accessed by clicking “Select courts.” This will show
all courts, with state court on one side and federal on the other. It can be narrowed like this:
OR
Or kept open like this:
Say you want to look at habeas corpus matters in Idaho State courts, but not federal courts. Click
Idaho and this field and message will appear:
For example, when I entered the keyword search “writ of habeas corpus” into the search bar, the
results provided in less than one second consisted of 456 cases. (One benefit of Google Scholar is
that speed). The system defaults to a relevance search, but it can be changed to either most recent
cases first or you can set parameters for a certain time frame, such as all of 2017. Just click on the
appropriate field in the left hand toolbar.
A custom range can be input as well:
Each case has a hyperlinked citation and includes a few lines from the case, which contain the
keyword you searched for, much like a Google search result from the normal search engine.
Underneath the results you’ll see the number of times the case has been cited. When you click on
the case, you’ll see a list of citations to the case. The “How cited” link includes the citation and the
number of similar citations that exist online. You’ll also see the “Cited by” case list in the toolbar on
the right.
Clicking “Cite” offers ways for you to copy or import the citation:
Advanced Searches
In the homepage toolbar there is also an “Advanced Search” button. While the language indicates it is
for articles, Google appears to list all cases in this database as well. This permits you to add limiters
and additional terms to a search, as seen below:
This provides more targeted search results and the ability to see and modify the advanced search
from the search bar as well.
My Library
Clicking “Save” stores the case in your Google Scholar Library. You can save citations in Google’s “My
library” as well. Your library can be set up on the main Google Scholar page in the top toolbar:
Simply click enable and it will store all cases saved into the library so you can re-visit each saved case
at a later point in time.
Once the case is saved, it is marked as such in the search results:
You can learn more about organizing your Google Scholar library here.
Google Alerts
Google enables you to set up Alerts associated with particular cases or areas of law. One way to set
alerts is from the Google Scholar’s homepage in the top toolbar. Another way is to set one up when
viewing a case that is relevant to your matter. While viewing the case, simply scroll to the bottom of
the page and click the “Create alert” link.
It will auto-populate the search terms and, if you’re logged into your Google account, your personal
information. If not, it will prompt you to enter your email. It will also provide sample report
information like this:
Of course, you don’t need to be logged in to create the alert. Google will simply require you to go
through a verification process, after which it will indicate that a verification email has been sent to
the email you provided. Once you receive it, you’ll have to click on the verification link in that email in
order to start getting the alerts.
It is worth knowing that Google Alerts can be set for any type of Google Search, including firm name,
lawyers in the firm, and issues relevant to a particular practice area. Use this tool to ensure that
you’re on top of issues that matter to you.
And, last but not least, you can modify a number of default Google Scholar settings by clicking on
“Settings,” which can be found in the top toolbar on the main page. Under settings you can set
the default to “Case law” instead of “Articles,” increase the number of cases per page, choose to
make each selected result open in a new browser window, and change the citation information
preferences.
So, now that you’ve learned the basics of Google Scholar, let’s move onto other online legal research
sources.
2. State Court Websites
Most state courts offer some caselaw, with limitations. Here are 3 examples.
Example 1: Washington Courts
The Washington Courts site includes rules, regulations, and cases.
You can sign up to get automatic email notifications of changes in rules or opinions.
The Washington Courts recently added a Judicial Opinions Website powered by LexisNexis. To access
it, check the box shown below and provide your search parameters:
You can search the site by keyword, court, opinion dates, citation, party name, or judge.
This site refers to keywords as “terms” and this is what the search box looks like:
Compare this to the “advanced” search from the main screen:
This is not very helpful if you are not familiar with the connectors that Lexis uses, but fine if you do.
Once you are viewing a case, if you click “Advanced,” more help is available.
Note that you are able to narrow the search results further by using the connectors.
The search results will list all of the places that your keywords appear, the name of the case, and
an indication of its subsequent treatment (aka Shepardizing). Hovering over the Shepard’s symbol
provides additional detail, but if you click on the symbol to view the full results, you’ll quickly learn
that detailed Shepardized results are not available. Even so, you at least have some indication of
subsequent treatment that is comparable to that found in Casemaker and Google Scholar.
You can also save, print, export to a PDF printable format, or email with the symbols at the top of the
right hand toolbar. Unfortunately, you’re unable to save cases in a folder within this platform.
Narrow your search with new terms by putting them in the “Focus Terms” box. The results will then
highlight the new terms (also notice that the treatment flags are more varied here):
Example 2: Maryland Courts
Maryland Courts provide an online portal that includes searchable appellate opinions. You can
access the portal here.
Using the portal you can search by court or filing year. Search results can be sorted by the date
that the opinion was filed, case docket number, citation, judge, or the first listed party’s name. You
are also able to limit the results by reported or unreported cases, along with the other types of
categories as shown in the gray left hand sidebar below:
Alternatively, if you’d prefer to search using keywords, follow this link and enter the keywords, as
shown below. Note that the drop-down menu to the left of the search box allows you to narrow the
search results by court.
Example 3: New York Courts
New York Court decisions can be found here.
Each Appellate Division and court listed here has some platform for archiving and searching cases,
but they’re all a little different. You can search for cases from each Appellate Division separately. For
example, the First Department allows you to search it decisions here. You can search by date or by
keyword.
However, note that a search for “Smith” brought up these results:
So be sure to try other search options like “Advanced Search” which give you more fields to search by
and could give you better results.
Each Appellate Division website has its own interface and looks different from the others. For
example, see the Fourth Department’s website below.
Example 4: California Courts
California court opinions can be found here: The most recent cases are searchable by using the “Last
100 hours” search field, but by using the options found in the drop-down menu, you can also limit
your search by court.
Official Reports Opinions are searchable from 1850 to present, and can be found here. This search
engine is powered by LexisNexis, so it will feel familiar to Lexis users. Choose your desired court and
enter the search terms:
Your search results will highlight key terms used and provide a symbol that indicates subsequent
treatment of the case.
But, like Washington, Shepardizing is not included with this platform so clicking on that symbol
will result in an error. Nonetheless, the symbols will provide some indication that further research
is needed in order to ascertain subsequent treatment. Also, note that case results are include
hyperlinked law and cases.
3. Bar Association Legal Research
Platforms
Most state bar associations offer free legal research either through Casemaker or Fastcase. Each bar
association’s contracts may include varying degrees of access to features, so all features shown here
may not be available in your state. The prevailing market would lead one to believe that Fastcase is
the superior product because it has a larger share of the marketplace. But as someone who has used
each platform, I would suggest that there are benefits to both.
Fastcase uses automation and data to quickly update its system and visually show the history of a
case. Fastcase 7, which was recently rolled out in some states, has an interesting way of mapping
cases, which will be discussed below.
In comparison, Casemaker provides a better interface for showing the treatment of a case (though
the analysis is done by human brains which may be more fallible than the automated methods of
Fastcase). It offers a daily digest and CiteCheck, permitting users to upload a brief into Casemaker
and check all of its citations automatically. (See CARA in Casetext for a similar feature).
Let’s take a look at each of these legal research platforms.
Fastcase
Fastcase is used by the majority of bar associations. It currently has two versions (6 and 7), and you
can toggle between them by using the button on the left hand side of the top tool bar. Here is what
Fastcase 6 looks like:
This is how Fastcase 7’s interface appears:
Fastcase uses algorithms to identify keywords and delivers the information in ways that differ from
most other platforms. For example, when you click on a case, you’ll see one panel looks something
like a word map of the case, like this:
Each of the words is a certain size based on the frequency and importance of it in the case (more
important words are bigger, as one would expect) and they are all hyperlinked. Click on a word to get
more cases delving deeper into a particular issue of interest
Another unique search characteristic provided by Fastcase is the interactive timeline map. These
maps offer a visual representation of the governing case laws relating to a search result.
The clickable map shows which cases are the most important within a particular time frame.
These panels can be increased or decreased as you prefer.
The Fastcase 7 platform is more attractive visually, but some lawyers continue to use the Fastcase
6 interface. It’s really a matter of personal preference. Here is another screenshot of the updated
interface.
Casemaker
Bars without Fastcase generally offer access to Casemaker. Oftentimes you log into Casemaker on
the homepage of the bar association. For example, the Washington State Bar Association Casemaker
login can be found here.
One drawback is that the Casemaker interface is more traditional than Fastcase’s. However,
Casemaker claims that it provides the most up-to-date information, with all changed and new laws
appearing on their site within four days of the passage of the law.
Search Tips
Searching with terms and connectors on Casemaker is a little different from other products. You can
use natural language, but the results improve if you use terms and connectors in your search. Special
search terms and tips can be accessed here.
The chart below explains the shortcuts:
USE... T O G E T R E S U LT S T H AT. . . EX AMPLES
AND Will give results with both words contract AND written
OR Will give results with either/or alimony OR support
support NOT child (would presumably give

NOT Of fers results excluding the second word
you results for “marital support” only)
This example will of fer words that must have

Grouping (trespass OR car) AND malicious mischief
MM, and will have either car or trespass
Phrase Have the complete phrase in them “res ipsa loquitur”
Will of fer documents with the word and ~contract would bring up agreement,
Thesaurus
synonyms of the word convention, bond, agree to, etc.
Gives results where the words are within the defamation w/10 libel
Proximit y
set number of words apart easement /5 ingress OR engress
Brings up results where the ending of the Abrogate* brings up abrogation, abrogates,
Asterisk
word varies abrogating, etc.
When you perform a search, Casemaker will provide you with the number of results and show you
where those results can be found.
If you click on the items you want to see (say Cases), it will give you a further breakdown, as shown
here:
It will also list the first two cases in each category. If you click on the “View all” in the blue bar, you’ll
be provided with a quick view of all the cases.
You can narrow your search for cases by topic, court, cite, docket number, case name, judge, attorney
of record, or by date ranges of the decision. For Pleadings, the fields available to narrow your search
results are different, and include fact type, pleading type, issue type, motion, appeal, services, state,
or jurisdictions.
Shepardizing
In the list format Casemaker offers either positive or negative treatment indications that look like this:
When you click on a case, you’ll see more detailed information about the subsequent case treatment:
When you click on the case cited next to the negative treatment you get a list of all incidents of
negative treatment. Clicking on each one take you to the case that negatively cited your original
cases, but you will need to read the case to ascertain how the negative the treatment will affect
your case. In other words, just like any system of “Shepardizing,” it’s necessary to read the case to
determine the impact of the negative treatment.
Another useful source of citation information is provided by the blue number and symbol at the top
of the left hand corner. It shows how many times the case has been cited to and charts those sites.
For example, Douglas v. Bussabarger below was cited to 71 times:
Here is a chart that shows which cases cited your original case, in what court, and in what year. You
can view this information by hovering your cursor over each point in the graph. This chart can be
accessed by clicking on the graph-like symbol (seen above) next to the number of times the case has
been cited.
Once you one click on a point in the chart (as shown above), it brings up a list of all cases that cited
that case, the type of treatment, and the court in which the case was decided, as shown below:
4. FindLaw
FindLaw is a good resource for beginning your research depending on your practice areas and the
jurisdictions in which you practice. It is a free clearinghouse of useful resources that is definitely
worth investigating.
5. The PLoL
The PLoL is a free online database of caselaw created and run by Fastcase. You can search for cases
using natural language or Boolean search terms. Authority Check is its case citation service and is
similar to that found in Fastcase. Cases that are not available on PLoL will be available on Fastcase,
for a fee.
The first time you use the service, you will need to register.
6. Casetext
Casetext was launched as a free platform for legal research that was basically a crowd-sourced legal
research platform powered by input from other lawyers. It combined the Casetext database with the
collective knowledge and expertise of the legal community in the form of annotations and insights
from other attorneys. Recently Casetext changed to a fee-based service and released a new feature,
Case Analysis Research Assistant (CARA) which utilizes machine learning and Artificial Intelligence.
With CARA, lawyers can drag-and-drop a brief or memo into Casetext and obtain a list of suggestions
for cases that are relevant to the issues addressed in the document.
If you perform a lot of legal research, Casetext may be able to provide you with better results with
less work on your part, so it is worth investigating. Unfortunately, the free legal research functions of
Casetext are no longer available.
Conclusion
As you can see, there are many ways to conduct legal research for free. They drawback is
that some may require more of your time to ascertain relevant results. That why it’s important to
conduct a cost/benefits analysis in order to determine the most cost-effective solution for your
firm. After all, time is money. A good starting point is to ascertain if there is a way to start your
initial research with a free platform and then move on to a fee-based service when you’re ready
to refine your search results.
The key to making the right choice for your firm is to make sure you’ve educated yourself about
the free or low cost options that are available to you and then choose your research path wisely.
There is more than one way to do…well, just about anything. Experiment carefully and then find a
way conduct legal research in a way that works best for you and your firm.
Resources
Georgetown Law Library has an extensive free or low cost legal research database catalog here.
Internet Legal Research on a Budget: Free and Low-Cost Resources for Lawyers
Carole A. Levitt and Judy K. Davis ( July 2014)
This book provides information for free or low-cost resources for legal research such as legal portals
and directories, case law databases, bar association free member-benefit databases, legislation,
research sources, and cite-checking services.
ISBN 9781627226165
The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet: Conducting Effective Investigative & Legal
Research on the Web (9th Edition)
Carole A. Levitt, JD, MLS and Mark E. Rosch (April 2008)
Guide to free and low cost resources to conduct investigative and legal research on the Internet.
ISBN 9780971325739
The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet: Conducting Effective Investigative & Legal
Research on the Web (13th Edition)
Carole A. Levitt, JD, MLS and Mark E. Rosch (2015)
Guide to free and low cost resources to conduct investigative and legal research on the Internet.
ISBN 9780971325784
Find Info Like a Pro: Mining the Internet’s Publicly Available Resources for Investigative
Research (Volume 1)
Carole A. Levitt and Mark E. Rosch (March 2010)
Reveals secrets, shortcuts, and realities of conducting investigative and background research using
sources of publicly available information on the Internet.
ISBN 9781604428902
Find Info Like a Pro: Mining the Internet’s Public Records for Investigative Research
(Volume 2)
Carole A. Levitt and Mark E. Rosch (March 2012)
Reveals secrets, shortcuts, and realities of conducting investigative and background research using
sources of publicly available information on the Internet.
ISBN 9781604429220
Ready To Get Organized With
Practice Management Software?
Get The MyCase Free Trial
About the Author

Charity Anastasio is the Director of Law Office Management Assistance at the Maryland State Bar
Association. She received her JD from Seattle University School of Law in 2007 and opened a solo
practice in 2008 focusing on estate planning, probate, and family law. In 2013 she became the
Washington State Bar Association’s Practice Management Advisor. In September of 2016 she traded
coasts to join the Maryland State Bar Association. Charity is the Chair of the Local and County Bar
Outreach Committee of the ABA Law Practice Division and a regular contributor to the Bar Bulletin of
the MSBA. She has also written for the NW Sidebar, NW Lawyer with her Practice Made Perfect column,
and the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center’s Law Technology Today blog. Her memberships
include the Washington State Bar Association, National Bar Executives Association, and the American
Bar Association’s Law Practice Division and GP Solo and Small Section. You can reach her at
canastasio@msba.org or 443-703-3026.

Mycase - Ebook - Guide To Using Google Scholar Ebook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Mycase - Ebook - Guide To Using Google Scholar Ebook PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mycase - Ebook - Guide To Using Google Scholar Ebook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDE TO USING

State Court Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Bar Association Legal Research Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

What Google says about Google Scholar:

• United State Supreme Court cases since 1791

Or kept open like this:

Once the case is saved, it is marked as such in the search results:

Example 1: Washington Courts

The Washington Courts site includes rules, regulations, and cases.

Compare this to the “advanced” search from the main screen:

New York Court decisions can be found here.

However, note that a search for “Smith” brought up these results:

Let’s take a look at each of these legal research platforms.

USE... T O G E T R E S U LT S T H AT. . . EX AMPLES

OR Will give results with either/or alimony OR support

support NOT child (would presumably give

This example will of fer words that must have

Phrase Have the complete phrase in them “res ipsa loquitur”

About the Author

You might also like