Classification System

Library of Congress Classification System in Law Libraries

The follow definition of Library of Congress Classification System is of use in law library research: A classification system developed by the Library of Congress for its collection, and used by most of the (United States) college and university libraries.

Classified index

Allan Hanson thinks that a classification system “reflects ideas about meaningful relationships
among the parts in the body of information being classified”; an index, on the other hand, is a
finding device and “conveys nothing about relationships that may exist among different topics.”

For Hanson, the West’s system is a “classified index,” which served both the classification and
indexing functions. He says that “the taxonomic classifications built into print research tools promote a view of the law as a hierarchically organized system based on general principles.”

Library of Congress Classification of Trials and Court Decisions

Accounts of trials and judicial decisions are inherently legal, and in many jurisdictions are the most important sources consulted when doing legal research. Where they class depends on whether the resource (book/serial) being classified is a collection of judicial opinions, an account of a single case, or about the legal doctrines derived from the courts’ opinions.

Applying the rules for the United States (KF) is easy; names of courts and reporters appear in the schedules, and, of course, the numbers in question were created with the American court system in mind. For the most part, the same holds true for other schedules that are country specific (e.g., KD for Britain, KE for Canada).

For jurisdictions whose numbers are derived from tables (such as the Afro-Asian KL-KWX tables), it can be a bit trickier, especially for federations whose legal systems do not make sharp distinctions between “state” and “federal” jurisdictions.

For example, the “Bombay High Court” in Mumbai (which has yet to change its name even though the city did over 20 years ago) predates the existence of the Republic of India. Federal laws regulate the court, but it has jurisdiction over several states, including some original jurisdictions as well as appellate jurisdictions from what are local, state sponsored courts.

For someone used to the American system, this is bizarre, meaning a cataloger needs to understand how each federation structures its courts. Wikipedia, and the references it points to, can be a good source for figuring out a foreign judicial system, but since “third world” countries have discovered the Internet, a court’s web page explaining itself would be the
best source. It would also be a good idea if country-specific modifications were added to the schedules and perhaps the name authorities, indicating how each court is related to the overall judiciary.

Judicial opinions.

Collections of judicial decisions always have a special place in the front of any table or schedule. In common law countries, these are often the most important source materials. In civil law countries, they are less important, but Library of Congress Classification (LCC) still puts them in the front. Keep in mind that we are talking about non-subject based collections of many courts or of a single court. If the collection is limited to a specific subject (such as “Collected
cases about widgets”), it classes with the subject.

The numbers for the United States are well developed at KF101-KF151. Note that numbers for digests (and other finding aids) integrate with actual case reports, and there is a place for miscellaneous court documents such as briefs. There are numbers for the regional state reporters (though reports from a single state class in the state number). Specialized federal
courts that do not reflect a subject have a place in the front (reports of subject-specific courts class with the subject). There is a place for collected agency decisions (“Article I courts”) that are not subject specific.

While KF sets the pattern for all the schedules and tables, other countries have a different division of labor between state and federal courts, and the sharp American distinctions between judicial (Article III) and administrative (Article I) courts do not hold true for all countries. Some research by the cataloger may be required. In addition, many legal systems do not routinely publish formal judicial opinions, and the only record of cases is what strikes Americans as mere abstracts, probably because in those countries, judicial opinions are less important than scholarly analysis, i.e., the “doctrine” of civil law systems.

Subject collections

A collection of cases about a specific subject classes with the subject, regardless of whether they are from a single court or many courts. Thus West’s Bankruptcy Reporter classes in KF1515 rather than with the federal reporters.

In the KF6 table (the single number United States table), the cutter for case reports is at .A5, with separate ranges for court decisions and administrative decisions (a meaningful distinction in the United States), along with separate cutters for serials, monographs, and finding aids. In table K11 (the single number table for much of the world), court decisions and administrative
decisions are in a single range, .A473-A49, although that was not true when the tables were first introduced 25 years ago (this is a good thing, since in many countries, it is hard to tell the difference between “judicial” and “administrative” courts).

Trials and single cases

All schedules have a “Trials” number, and it is here that a single case is classed (e.g. KF220-229).
Usually, there is a provision for collections and individual trials, as well as separate civil and criminal ranges (and the newer schedules now put “war crimes” in a separate list). While most trial accounts are narratives about the case, depending on a library’s acquisitions policy, one may need to use these numbers for individual pleadings, briefs, and judicial opinions as
well. While at one time it was thought that a single case would class with the subject, it is now established that a single case classes in the trial numbers, which is why KF6 .A545 is bracketed (i.e. cancelled). If one wants to “force” an account or document of a single case into a topical number, one can make the topic the first subject heading (with $x Cases), include the “trials” headings as not-first subject headings, and classify it as a treatise.

Distinguishing between “criminal” and “civil” cases is straightforward (do not worry about “private prosecutions” since, except for Oscar Wilde, one is unlikely to get a book on one). While not present in KF, the more recent tables (e.g. KL-KWX6 43-44 for Afro-Asian common law jurisdictions) have a separate number for “war crimes” (i.e. violations of international criminal law) being prosecuted in national courts rather than international tribunals. For works about trials involving multiple persons, it is best to choose the best-known person and make him/her/it the first heading and basis for the A-Z cutter. If a case is very famous and involves multiple defendants, it is possible to propose a “printed” cutter for the schedule reflecting
the name of the case (cf. KTL41 for South Africa). While the schedules as first printed did include names of famous cases, today, one proposes an addition to the list of printed cases only for famous group trials or if there is some ambiguity (e.g, the trial of Jeanne d’Arc at KJV130.J625, since it was unclear if it should class in KJV, KD or KBR).

Caselaw vs Cases

A book discussing cases and “caselaw” (the LCSH $x Cases) is a treatise and classes as a general
work. It should not be classed in a number designed for publications of the official texts of court opinions. In common law jurisdictions, authors rarely write about the caselaw of a subject distinct from the statutory law of the subject, since one cannot understand one without the other. The only exception is someone discussing the decisions of a single court. A book
on the “caselaw” of a subject is a treatise and is classed as a general work.

In civil law countries, court decisions are often a distinct and inferior source of law (relative to the statutes themselves and scholarly writing or “doctrine”), and in those countries, one often finds works on the “jurisprudence” (the term used in French) of how the courts are applying the law, which they base on the statutes and doctrine rather than court precedents.

These are treatises and are cuttered as such. Only the actual text of cases is classed as cases.
The edited versions found in casebooks are not “cases” and should never be treated as such. The process of editing them for pedagogical use renders them useless for legal scholarship. They class as general works and probably should be classed as minor works, although that has not been the past practice. Reports of cases are for researchers; “casebooks” are a teaching
tool for students.

International cases

While it was once believed that international litigation would end up in a few central courts such as the International Court of Justice (for which there is a detailed arrangement in KZ), there are now many tribunals functioning internationally, including specialized and regional tribunals. The names of these tribunals are rarely mentioned in LCC, making it unclear what to do with either their own reports or works about them and their cases. They should be added into
LCC, perhaps with links to the Name Authority File (NAF).

The Hague courts have a detailed range of number at KZ199-218, and there are places for claims and arbitration in the Sources. Fontes juris gentium … by country area in KZ. It is not clear how to class a work about a case, such as someone’s dissertation on the history of the dispute and its litigation; presumably they class by subject, perhaps with a “$x Cases”
indicating that it is about an actual case. There is a “trials” number in KZ, but it is only for boundary disputes (with no logical sub-arrangement, although perhaps it should have one) and criminal cases (discussed below). Under the by-country sources, there are numbers for “claims,” such as KZ238 or table K23, 8-9, and some works about international litigation have classed there. Another option is to class the work by subject, treating it as a treatise (a work about a case, as opposed to the text of a decision, is a treatise), or if it is the text of the decision, putting the work in a “Court decisions” number such as table K8, A52-A54. Moreover, if the subject of litigation is a specific place, it can class in the “Subject of the law of nations, by state” range at KZ4110-KZ4825. For law of the sea, there is KZA1128 for trials, as well as KZA1123-KZ1124
for (not necessarily court) “decisions.” The schedule says that KZ1128 is the place to class the “International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and other international tribunals,” but it offers no guidance as to how we should treat a ruling on law of the sea from a tribunal that doesn’t specialize in the subject, or, for that matter, a law of the sea case on a specific topic
that has its own number in the schedule.

International criminal law is relatively straightforward. Most trials and case reports will go in the range at KZ1168-KZ1215. Trials by national and regional courts stay with the nation or region, but cross references have been, and should continue to be, inserted in KZ to resolve ambiguity, especially for “hybrid” tribunals (a country and an international body jointly-established hybrid tribunals). The International Criminal Court has its own ranges of numbers, with its documents classing at KZ7295-KZ7310 and its trials in KZ1215-KZ1216 (with an unresolved conflict since the rest of the KZ criminal trials arrange by conflict, not court). How this area develops over time will probably depend on whether new international tribunals keep getting established, as opposed to the International Criminal Court becoming the standard forum for international
criminal prosecution. If international criminal tribunals proliferate, we should find a way to add them to LCC rather than relying on catalogers having to figure out where in the tables to put them.

Author: Aaron Kuperman, Library of Congress

Classification System

Classification System

Library of Congress Classification System in Law Libraries

Classified index

Library of Congress Classification of Trials and Court Decisions

Subject collections

Trials and single cases

Caselaw vs Cases

International cases

Resources

See Also

Further Reading

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply