> I ask because, to lawyers, pagination matters -- a LOT. Lawyers refer to a case by the book and page number, and refer to parts of a case by the page numbers. It's probably not a great system, but the courts don't have anchors in text for better or worse.
In effect, the volumes and page numbers from the official reporter are anchors in the text -- and are stored that way in other databases (and sometimes included as textual anchors in secondary printed references.)
They are anchors of a sort, they're just inconvenient because they change from version to version and often aren't included in online versions. If a court says (in slightly more words) "pages 205 to 207 are overruled" there are often paragraphs that span from pages 204-205 and from 207-208 that are ambiguous --- and it gets even worse when a different book version is paginated so that the range above covers part of page 621 to part of page 624. Anchors on paragraphs (if not lines) would be useful.
> They are anchors of a sort, they're just inconvenient because they change from version to version and often aren't included in online versions.
Most online versions I've seen do include both the citation and page numbers from the official reporters.
> If a court says (in slightly more words) "pages 205 to 207 are overruled" there are often paragraphs that span from pages 204-205 and from 207-208 that are ambiguous
US courts don't generally do that. They cite prior cases using page references, but they don't say "pages X-Y" are overruled. Its not a matter of more or less words, that's just not how they work at all. If they are reversing a lower court decision, they simply state that the decision is reversed (and if it is reversed in part, they describe which effects are reversed, which may not map to specific separable parts of the text). If they are stating a new legal rule overriding a prior precedent, they simply state the new legal rule.
> and it gets even worse when a different book version is paginated so that the range above covers part of page 621 to part of page 624.
Different books aren't the official reporter. Different books (or online sources) that are intended to be legal references will often include, as anchors in the text, the page numbers from the official reporter at the point in the text where the pages break in the official reporter.
As an example in an online source, consider the Findlaw entry for The Amistad [1]. The heading includes the reference to the official reporter (40 U.S. 518) -- 518 is the page number on which the case starts in the official reporter.
Throughout the text on Findlaw, you'll see blue notes like "[40 U.S. 518, 523]" -- these indicate points of page breaks in the official reporter (they follow the style of standard legal citation, so 40 U.S. 518, 523 marks the beginning point of page 523, in the case beginning at page 518, in volume 40 of the United States Reports.)
In some texts, there are insane attempts to not change numbers between versions. If pages are removed, those page numbers are not used. If text is added, they add sub-page numbers, like sub-bullets in an outline. Some legal tomes are in binders, not hard-bound, to accommodate this.
This leads to page numbers like 247.1151a-iii. Which is then the canonical page number for a block of text.
It's enough to make the Library of Congress filing system seem simple and rational!!
I have been in charge of maintaining binders that work that way. It's a pain, especially if updates to the same section arrive out of chronological order, and you're using a shredder . . .
In effect, the volumes and page numbers from the official reporter are anchors in the text -- and are stored that way in other databases (and sometimes included as textual anchors in secondary printed references.)