The docket number for the Supreme Court case of Georgia v.

Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

Also worth reading: What should I do if I can't provide the discovery documents requested in a legal case? · Are lawyers using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for legal research and case preparation? · What was the legal precedent set by the Hermesmann v Seyer case?

is 18-1150.

The case involved the issue of whether the government edicts doctrine, which holds that official legal texts produced by the government are not subject to copyright, extends to works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA).

Public.Resource.Org, a nonprofit organization, had posted a digital version of the OCGA on various websites without permission, prompting the state of Georgia to file a lawsuit.

The Supreme Court docket for this case indicates that the party names are The Center for Democracy and Technology and Cato Institute, with Nicholas Jacob Bronni as the Counsel of Record.

The docket also includes amicus briefs, such as one from Docket Alarm, a legal technology company that provides docket tracking and analytics.

In April 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the OCGA annotations cannot be copyrighted, as they are considered government edicts and therefore ineligible for copyright protection.

The Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v.

Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

provides guidance on the scope of the government edicts doctrine, which is an important principle in copyright law.

The case highlights the tension between the public's right to access and use government-produced materials and the government's interest in controlling the distribution and use of those materials.

The decision has implications for how governments and private entities can manage and distribute legal materials, particularly in the digital age.

The case was closely watched by various stakeholders, including nonprofit organizations, legal technology companies, and media organizations, as evidenced by the amicus briefs filed in the case.

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is seen as a victory for the principle of public access to government-produced materials, which is a fundamental tenet of a democratic society.