[Tutor] Picking up citations

[Dinesh B Vadhia]

Kent /Emmanuel 

Below are the results using the PLY parser and Regex versions on the attached 'sierra' data which I think covers the common formats.  Here are some 'fully unparsed" citations that were missed by the programs:

Smith v. Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, 23 F.3d 1134, 1141 (7th Cir.1994)

Indemnified Capital Investments, S.A. v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 12 F.3d 1406, 1409 (7th Cir.1993).

Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commn., 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977)

Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1517-18 (9th Cir.1992) 

HTH

Dinesh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PLY PARSER VERSION RESULTS:
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)
Warth v. Seldin, 499 n. 10 (1975)
Warth v. Seldin, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975)
Warth v. Seldin, 2205 n. 10 (1975)
Warth v. Seldin, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 734, 1366 (1972)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 1366 (1972)

Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593 (1923)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 593, 663 (1923)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 663 (1923)

Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe, 836 F.Supp. 727, 732 (D.Or.1993)

Morris v. Myers, 845 F.Supp. 750, 754 (D.Or.1993)

Women Voters v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm, 679 F.2d 1218, 1221 (7th Cir.1982)


REGEX VERSION RESULTS:
Warth v. Seldin  422 U.S. 490 (1975) ("The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of ripeness--whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention...."); Gene R. Nichol, Jr., Ripeness and the Constitution, 54 U.Chi.L.Rev. 153, 155, 172-73 (1987) (noting that "the ripeness requirement is often indistinguishable from actionability analysis" and that no "line of demarcation" can be drawn between the Supreme Court's analysis in standing cases where "threatened or actual injury" is at issue and ripeness cases where the focus is on "direct and immediate harm"). Nonetheless, we will address standing and ripeness separately, reviewing the district court's decision on both points de novo. See Indemnified Capital Investments, S.A. v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 12 F.3d 1406, 1409 (7th Cir.1993)
Warth v. Seldin  499 n. 10 (1975) ("The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of ripeness--whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention...."); Gene R. Nichol, Jr., Ripeness and the Constitution, 54 U.Chi.L.Rev. 153, 155, 172-73 (1987) (noting that "the ripeness requirement is often indistinguishable from actionability analysis" and that no "line of demarcation" can be drawn between the Supreme Court's analysis in standing cases where "threatened or actual injury" is at issue and ripeness cases where the focus is on "direct and immediate harm"). Nonetheless, we will address standing and ripeness separately, reviewing the district court's decision on both points de novo. See Indemnified Capital Investments, S.A. v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 12 F.3d 1406, 1409 (7th Cir.1993)
Warth v. Seldin  95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975) ("The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of ripeness--whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention...."); Gene R. Nichol, Jr., Ripeness and the Constitution, 54 U.Chi.L.Rev. 153, 155, 172-73 (1987) (noting that "the ripeness requirement is often indistinguishable from actionability analysis" and that no "line of demarcation" can be drawn between the Supreme Court's analysis in standing cases where "threatened or actual injury" is at issue and ripeness cases where the focus is on "direct and immediate harm"). Nonetheless, we will address standing and ripeness separately, reviewing the district court's decision on both points de novo. See Indemnified Capital Investments, S.A. v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 12 F.3d 1406, 1409 (7th Cir.1993)
Warth v. Seldin  2205 n. 10 (1975) ("The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of ripeness--whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention...."); Gene R. Nichol, Jr., Ripeness and the Constitution, 54 U.Chi.L.Rev. 153, 155, 172-73 (1987) (noting that "the ripeness requirement is often indistinguishable from actionability analysis" and that no "line of demarcation" can be drawn between the Supreme Court's analysis in standing cases where "threatened or actual injury" is at issue and ripeness cases where the focus is on "direct and immediate harm"). Nonetheless, we will address standing and ripeness separately, reviewing the district court's decision on both points de novo. See Indemnified Capital Investments, S.A. v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 12 F.3d 1406, 1409 (7th Cir.1993)
Warth v. Seldin  45 L.Ed.2d 343  (1975) ("The standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of ripeness--whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention...."); Gene R. Nichol, Jr., Ripeness and the Constitution, 54 U.Chi.L.Rev. 153, 155, 172-73 (1987) (noting that "the ripeness requirement is often indistinguishable from actionability analysis" and that no "line of demarcation" can be drawn between the Supreme Court's analysis in standing cases where "threatened or actual injury" is at issue and ripeness cases where the focus is on "direct and immediate harm"). Nonetheless, we will address standing and ripeness separately, reviewing the district court's decision on both points de novo. See Indemnified Capital Investments, S.A. v. R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc., 12 F.3d 1406, 1409 (7th Cir.1993)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife  --- U.S. ---- (1992)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife  ---- (1992)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife  112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife  2136 (1992)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife  119 L.Ed.2d 351  (1992)
Sierra Club v. Morton  405 U.S. 727 (1972)
Sierra Club v. Morton  734 (1972)
Sierra Club v. Morton  92 S.Ct. 1361 (1972)
Sierra Club v. Morton  1366 (1972)
Sierra Club v. Morton  31 L.Ed.2d 636  (1972)
Whitmore v. Arkansas  495 U.S. 149 (1990)
Whitmore v. Arkansas  158 (1990)
Whitmore v. Arkansas  110 S.Ct. 1717 (1990)
Whitmore v. Arkansas  1724-25 (1990)
Whitmore v. Arkansas  109 L.Ed.2d 135  (1990)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia  262 U.S. 553 (1923)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia  593 (1923)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia  43 S.Ct. 658 (1923)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia  663 (1923)
Pennsylvania v. West Virginia  67 L.Ed. 1117  (1923)
Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe  836 F.Supp. 727 (D.Or.1993)
Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe  732  (D.Or.1993)
Morris v. Myers  845 F.Supp. 750 (D.Or.1993)
Morris v. Myers  754  (D.Or.1993)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/attachments/20090209/fcb68a55/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: sierra.txt
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/attachments/20090209/fcb68a55/attachment-0001.txt>