Photo by quartermane

Law Lessons from PALISADES COLLECTION, L.L.C. v. STEVEN GRAUBARD, DOCKET NO. A-1338-07T3, Decided April 17, 2009:

The common law doctrine of judicial notice is codified in N.J.R.E. 201. Subsection (b)(3) describes the rationale of the rule: The purpose of judicial notice is to save time and promote judicial economy by precluding the necessity of proving facts that cannot seriously be disputed and are either generally or universally known. Judicial notice cannot be used “to circumvent the rule against hearsay and thereby deprive a party of the right of cross-examination on a contested material issue of fact.” Because judicial notice may not be used to deprive a party of cross-examination regarding a contested fact, the doctrine also cannot be used to take notice of the ultimate legal issue in dispute. [State v. Silva, 394 N.J. Super. 270, 275 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting RWB Newton Assocs. v. Gunn, 224 N.J. Super. 704, 711 (App. Div. 1988)).]

Wikipedia bills itself as the “online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Anyone with an internet connection can create a Wikipedia account and change any entry in Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia warns readers that “[t]he content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.” Thus, it is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the article, and thereafter offer it in court in support of any given position. Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable, and clearly not one “whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”

For more on Wikipedia, go HERE.

Wikipedia is inherently unreliable, and not entitled to Judicial Notice because it clearly is not one whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on April 30, 2009.