Search results

“I need to find five Supreme Court cases dealing with civil rights between the years 1900–1950.” “Can you help me find information about Plessy vs. Ferguson?” These are just a few examples of the many questions I've received about Supreme Court cases. Any reference librarian at an academic institution without a law library will recognize the frustration many librarians experience when confronted with these questions. Until we become familiar with legal reference books and legal citations, we may feel that serendipity is the only way to find Supreme Court cases. A librarian may fumble through many volumes of legal materials, hoping the patron has a correct date, case name, or citation; or, for that matter, that they even have a case name or citation.

Bestsellers, the weekly Top 40, Fortune 500, Places Rated Almanac are just a few of the ranked lists available that fascinate and thrill almost every‐one. These lists often contribute to our decision making. A consumer looks for the best car, a college graduate hunts for jobs at the top companies, a student applies to the best law schools. Library patrons often ask for ratings of different items, but rankings, though a valuable source of information on various topics, can be very difficult to locate. This bibliography provides a list of selected sources of rankings covering the following areas: multi‐subject, consumer, education, film and television, geography, and music.

This index accompanies the index that appeared in Reference Services Review 16:4 (1988). As noted in the introduction to that index, the articles in RSR that deal with specific reference titles can be grouped into two categories: those that review specific titles (to a maximum of three) and those that review titles pertinent to a specific subject or discipline. The index in RSR 16:4 covered the first category; it indexed, by title, all titles that had been reviewed in the “Reference Serials” and the “Landmarks of Reference” columns, as well as selected titles from the “Indexes and Indexers,” “Government Publications,” and “Special Feature” columns of the journal.

The purpose of this article is to provide non‐law librarians with two strategies for quickly helping millennials with online US Supreme Court research. The first strategy is to locate law‐librarian authored online research guides on the topic. The second strategy is to jump straight into one of the many free online databases that contain US Supreme Court opinions.

The article demonstrates the abundance of academic law‐librarian authored legal research guides available on the internet and explains how to evaluate them. Additionally, the article provides examples of many free online databases that allow searching, browsing and retrieval of full‐text US Supreme Court opinions.

Millennials looking for US Supreme Court opinions expect to be provided with digital research resources. Online legal research guides can help librarians find the latest online databases with full‐text US Supreme Court opinions. Widespread internet access to the entire run of US Supreme Court opinions is a very recent phenomenon. But today, several new web sites have made the entire run of US Supreme Court opinions available for free, vastly improving librarians' ability to meet millennials' expectations of immediate access to full‐text resources online.

This article provides librarians with two strategies for quickly helping millennials with online US Supreme Court research.

Although the topics of business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are not new, this article focuses on the changing role of both subjects in the current business world. Having heard much about CSR in the past, the authors were under the impression that it had taken hold as a movement and more and more corporations were leaning toward ethical business practices and social responsibility. Media attention on the shocking revelations of the tobacco industry stimulated their interest in investigating this impression. Their research indicates that, although some corporations are still practicing unethical behavior, many more indicated that they have a social responsibility to their stakeholders.