If you are a Lexis subscriber with an iPhone, you can now view cases and get a Shepard's Summary of the case on your iPhone with the LexisNexis Get Cases & Shepardize app that came out last month. The app does what it says, but the current 1.0 version suffers from some major limitations that I hope will be remedied in an update.
The first time that you use the app you are prompted for your Lexis username and password. My understanding is that there is no charge to use the app and that the username requirement is there simply because LexisNexis limits use of the app to current subscribers. Having said that, I am still trying to get official confirmation of this from LexisNexis, and I will update this paragraph of this post as I get more information. [UPDATE 12/30/09: LexisNexis sent me confirmation that there is no charge to use the app. Great news!]
Once your username and password are stored, the app will not ask you for them again. To get a case simply enter the citation.
After a few seconds, you will be given the case. The useful editorial content that Lexis adds to cases is included, such as (when available) Subsequent History, Procedural Posture, Overview, Outcome, Core Terms, Headnotes, Counsel, etc.
You can tap the Shepardize button at the top to see a Shepard's Summary to get a sense of whether the case is still good law, including the Shepard's Signal circles — green means good, red means caution.
Unfortunately, there are some major omissions from this version of the app that limit the app's usefulness. First, you are going to most likely want to use this app when you are out of your office, on the go. Perhaps when you are in court and hear opposing counsel mention a case. But unless you know the case citation, you can't use the app at all. It would be so helpful to be able to search by title and jurisdiction, so that when the other party mentions the "Morial v. Smith & Wesson" case, or even just the "Morial" case, you can pull it up. No such luck, unless the other party also says "785 So. 2d 1" in the same breath.
Second, when you are viewing a case, there are no hyperlinks. Thus, if the case you are reviewing cites another case, you cannot just click to see how the case is being cited. You can use the standard iPhone copy function to copy the cite and then do a new search and paste that cite, but that is a real pain and I see no justification for this cumbersome workaround. Moreover, there is no back button so you cannot then jump back to the original case after you have viewed a second case.
Third, the app does not let you view statutes, just cases. I don't understand this limitation; obviously Lexis has statutes in its database as well.
Fourth, the Shepard's feature is far too limited. This has the potential to be the killer aspect of the app — Shepardize a case while you are in court, and instantly telling the judge that your opponent is citing bad law. But no, not really. As you can see from the pictures posted above, all that you get is a Shepard's Summary. So, for example, when I ran a report on a case I recently argued and won before the U.S. Fifth Circuit, Audler v. CBC Innovis, Inc., 519 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2008), I am told that the case was superseded (and thus has a red warning signal) and was also distinguished. This could be critical information ... but I can't really make much use of it, because the app doesn't list any of the cases themselves. I just get this summary. So I know that the case was cited 80 times, was supposedly superseded, and was supposedly distinguished, but I cannot see a list of those cases or read the cases themselves to determine if the Audler case is still good law and was just superseded or distinguished on a point that doesn't matter. I don't consider this to be a userful Shepardizing exercise. It is just a big tease, and a confusing one at that considering that once I Shepardized the Audler case on Lexis.com, I discovered that (1) the "superseded" cite is just an unreported case distinguishing Audler's applicability under a different statute in another state, which I would never even call "superseding" law anyway (Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Tex. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101240 (N.D. Tex. 12/11/08)) and (2) the "distinguished" case is simply one holding that the result is different under Mississippi law (Paul v. Landsafe Flood Determination, Inc., 550 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2008)), which has no effect on the Audler case still being a correct interpretation of Louisiana law.
Fifth, the app can really use some user interface improvements, although I readily admit that these are just my personal preferences and are minor points. It would be helpful to resize the font size. You can pinch to zoom, but then you have to scroll back and forth to read which can give you a headache after a while. I also wish that there was some pop-up window to populate the source such as So. 2d, F.2d, etc. when you are entering a cite. Switching back and forth between the number keyboard and the letter keyboard to manually enter every letter and number of a cite wastes time when the app could just let you enter the two numbers, perhaps pre-populating your last used source and letting you easily tap to select a different one. It would also be helpful to have a history button so that you can pull up a case you recently viewed, which would also alleviate the omission of a back button as I noted above. Having said that, they should also add a back button.
To be clear, I am offering only constructive criticism of this 1.0 version of the app. All of these omissions can be easily addressed in a future update, at which time this app could become insanely useful. In its current state, however, I prefer to just use the free Google Scholar website on your iPhone, which I reviewed last month. You can find a specific case on Google Scholar using either a citation or a case name. For example, I can find that Audler case by citation, but can also find it if I just run a search for "Audler CBC." Indeed, I could even just do a search for "Audler" and in this example, the right case would be the second search result. While Google Scholar omits the editorial content that Lexis gives you such as a case summary, it does let you click on a hyperlink for any cited case to view that case, and then you can hit your Safari back button to go back to the original case. With Google Scholar, you can even tap the "How Cited" tab to get a list of citing cases. Google Scholar doesn't tell you whether these cases distinguish, overrule or just follow the original case, but you can see excerpts that might tell you what you need to know. For example, as you can see in this picture, Google Scholar doesn't list the unreported case that Lexis (incorrectly) claimed was a superseding case, but does list the Paul case and I can guess from the brief excerpt's use of the word "In that case" that Paul is likely a case distinguishing Audler.
Additionally, Google Scholar even lets you search for caselaw by searching for words and phrases, something you can't do on the Lexis app, although to be fair the Lexis app doesn't intend to be a research tool, and the title itself tells you that this app is just a way to get a case and Shepardize it. Finally, Google Scholar is incredibly fast, even on an iPhone. The Lexis app takes several seconds to load a case, which can get annoying. I know that Google has some really fast computer servers sending the data to my iPhone, but you would think that Lexis does too.
I'm glad to see this app. Westlaw doesn't offer anything similar. Some people might find the current version useful in some situations. For example, George Mason University third year law student Adam Aft told me that he "could see the value of pulling up a case [in class] to glance at the case summary, especially if there is no other lifeline while drowning in a sea of socratic dialogue." But Adam agrees with me that the shortcomings of this app are frustrating. If Lexis adds some or all of these missing features, they will have a real winner on their hands. But in the current 1.0 version, this is not an app that I will often use or recommend over the free Google Scholar.
Click here to get LexisNexis Get Cases & Shepardize (free): 
