Headnotes & Footnotes Titres Et Rubriques: Fill & Download for Free

It does not look like the search feature on Westlaw Next currently supports making this dichotomy. Using a non-West service like Casemaker or Google Scholar would eliminate any hits from the headnotes; the headnotes are a proprietary service in the West reporters and Westlaw.But there really shouldn’t be anything in the headnotes that isn’t in the case, so I don’t see this as that much of a problem. You probably will get only a handful of hits where a term is in the headnote but not the case itself.Once in a while the headnotes seem to make more of a point than the actual decision itself does; it’s usually worth double-checking: if the term shows up in the headnote, just click the number of the headnote to jump to that part of the case and see what the original text says.Or if you’ve done a search for terms, just scroll past the headnotes for your term.

Without study materials?Read the headnotes and get the outlines of the same professors from outlinedepot.

Corporate personhood is the result of a typo, really more of an intentional mistake made in the writing of a “headnote” by a court reporter (ex-railroad employee) to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1886 decision on an obscure tax case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.The railroads were pushing the court to rule that corporations have equal taxation and other human rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided in favor of Southern Pacific, but specifically did not rule on the immense issue of personhood. There was zero open court discussion about it. There were no written opinions mentioning it. And in fact they rendered no judgment on it.The error was made by the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis. He wrote the headnote to the decision. The headnote is a summary of the case. Court reporters received a commission from the publisher for these legal documents. His lead sentence states: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”That’s it. A simple clerk’s misinterpretation of the SCOTUS ruling is the foundation on which rests today’s practically limitless assertions of corporate “rights.” Davis later asked Chief Justice Waite whether he was correct in saying that the court had ruled on corporate personhood, and Waite’s response was “we avoided meeting the Constitutional questions.”Corporate attorneys seized on the headnote, quoting it as the law of the land. It was not long before politicians and judges themselves joined in the farce, either because they were eager to support the corporate cause or were simply too lazy to read the actual case. The results of that “typo” over the last 131 years have been catastrophic. Citizens United alone has institutionalized political graft and corruption at levels the founders could not have possible conceived. They did not believe corporations were persons either.For more information go to https://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/664 which goes into much greater depth and from which most of this answer came from. :-)