Should the registry distinguish between current and 'historicial' jurisdictions/courts?

[KampfCaspar]

In my lifetime, I experienced one (civil) or two (military) revisions of the court system. The situation only gets more complicated in Switzerland, as the cantons (states) were totally free in their court organization.

In legal research - be it historical or current - one has to reference both currently existing and no longer existing courts. In a GUI however, users could be stupefied having 'historical' courts being presented among known and current ones.

Would it be advisable to mark courts/jurisdictions as 'historical' and e.g. list them beneath current ones?

[sam-gagnon]

Hello!

This is very relevant to Canadian courts now too, and Courts in other Commonwealth countries I suspect.

Prior to the death of the Queen, many courts in Canada were called Court of Queen's Bench, and had the vendor neutral identifier "QB".

With the death of the Queen and the ascension of the King, these courts have been renamed to Court of King's Bench, with the identifier "KB".

The problem is that the vendor neutral identifier isn't retroactively applied. If I'm looking up a case from 2006 in New Brunswick, the neutral cite will be NBQB, not NBKB.

In my most recent pull request, I adressed this by naming the Queen's Bench to "-------Old------- Court of Queen's Bench" and adding in a new "Court of King's Bench", with the appropriate idenfifiers.

This is far from a perfect solution, but it is what I'm proposing. I'm sure that once Frank has more time, we can have a more in-depth discussion as to how to handle this change and any like it in the future.

[fbennett]

Hi Samuel, I'm immersed in the client update at present, but there is a way of discriminating by date in the LRR identifiers. I'll post details when my hands are free and I can write with more confidence: but we should be able to address this.

…

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023, 02:00 Samuel Gagnon ***@***.***> wrote: Hello! This is very relevant to Canadian courts now too, and Courts in other Commonwealth countries I suspect. Prior to the death of the Queen, many courts in Canada were called Court of Queen's Bench, and had the vendor neutral identifier "QB". With the death of the Queen and the ascension of the King, these courts have been renamed to Court of King's Bench, with the identifier "KB". The problem is that the vendor neutral identifier isn't retroactively applied. If I'm looking up a case from 2006 in New Brunswick, the neutral cite will be NBQB, not NBKB. In my most recent pull request <1a3470c>, I adressed this by naming the Queen's Bench to "-------Old------- Court of Queen's Bench" and adding in a new "Court of King's Bench", with the appropriate idenfifiers. This is far from a perfect solution, but it is what I'm proposing. I'm sure that once Frank has more time, we can have a more in-depth discussion as to how to handle this change and any like it in the future. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#51 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAASMSXP4V6HD4SJ5NWKJL3W2DGZJANCNFSM5JH6LPSA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sam-gagnon]

Thank you Frank, happy to see that you've already thought about this!

Btw, I know that you're up to your eyeballs in client coding, but did you get my email from earlier this week? I might have another source of dev funding for you that I'd like to talk about when you have a moment.

[CartCaved]

Hello!

This is very relevant to Canadian courts now too, and Courts in other Commonwealth countries I suspect.

Prior to the death of the Queen, many courts in Canada were called Court of Queen's Bench, and had the vendor neutral identifier "QB".

With the death of the Queen and the ascension of the King, these courts have been renamed to Court of King's Bench, with the identifier "KB".

The problem is that the vendor neutral identifier isn't retroactively applied. If I'm looking up a case from 2006 in New Brunswick, the neutral cite will be NBQB, not NBKB.

In my most recent pull request, I adressed this by naming the Queen's Bench to "-------Old------- Court of Queen's Bench" and adding in a new "Court of King's Bench", with the appropriate idenfifiers.

This is far from a perfect solution, but it is what I'm proposing. I'm sure that once Frank has more time, we can have a more in-depth discussion as to how to handle this change and any like it in the future.

Wouldn't this be a scenario where it's not so much a revision of the court system as just a name change. In you scenario, I'd expect to have two options, QB and KB depending on the name of the court when it made its judgment.

There is the other scenario where the system has been revised, for instance with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, which was established in 2005, taking over some jurisdiction from the Court of First Instance, and abolished in 2016, and it's jurisdiction taken over (handed back) to the European Union Genereal Court (formerly the Court of First Instance). (Don't you love EU law).

In the GUI, to record any opinion or judgment, you would need to have all courts and their names. But perhaps it would be useful for an easy switch to enable or disable non-functioning courts, for usecases where someone is only adding current cases.

[QueueToo]

Facing this issue now... There's some missing (?) historic military courts. What is now the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was previously the Court of Military Review, Court of Military Appels and the Military Appeals Court. I tried adding them to juris-abbrevs and juris-maps but that doesn't make them show in the court field in Juris-M. I THINK this is hardcoded to pull from LRR. I'm happy to add them to the JSON file and make a pull request but I'm not sure what's preferred...