« on: February 08, 2009, 08:58:48 AM »
We are working on preliminary support for Fastcase. There are several issues/differences that are apparent:
Take this case for example:
64 Cal.Rptr.3d 55
The header from Fastcase is:
Catalyst Strategic Design v. Kaiser, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 55, 153 Cal.App.4th 1328 (Cal. App., 2007)
- case title incorrectly shortened (should be Catalyst Strategic Design, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.)
- does not include page numbers for all reporters (missing Cal.App.4th).
- does not report court divisions or districts in the header (2d Dist).
In addition, the way footnotes are presented, it is impossible for CiteGenie to know what page of the opinion they occurred on.
Also, it appears that there is no on-screen indicator in Fastcase that a case has negative history (Westlaw red-flag).
Here is another example:
Ponte v. Investors, 815 A.2d 816, 149 Md.App. 219 (Md. App., 2003)
proper cite is:
R.A. Ponte Architects, Ltd. v. Investors' Alert, Inc., 815 A.2d 816 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003).
This case was reversed by 382 Md. 689, 857 A.2d 1.... but it is not in the citing history in Fastcase.
Searching in Md. by the title, finds the appeal, but it has no reporters.
Another inconsistency: 772 A.2d 868, has the court on the same line as the reporter.
I think they need to work out the kinks before we can spend a lot of time trying to make CiteGenie compatible with it. We would like to get some basic compatibility in the near future if the Fastcase HTML gets better, but advanced features such as footnote parsing, and the ability to get court names and reporters/pinpoints modified for specific jurisdictions will take more time, and will need for Fastcase to mature.