The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals used internet research by it to rule on a case before it. In Rowe v. Gibson, (792 F.3d 805) a prison inmate sued claiming injury because of a denial of needed medication and, when it was received, a refusal to give it to him when required. Judge Posner, who wrote the majority opinion, vacated a summary judgment based on internet research he did. He said:
“In citing even highly reputable medical websites in support of our conclusion that summary judgment was premature we may be thought to be “going outside the record” in an improper sense. It may be said that judges should confine their role to choosing between the evidentiary presentations of the opposing parties, much like referees of athletic events. But judges and their law clerks often conduct research on cases, and it is not always research confined to pure issues of law, without disclosure to the parties…. When medical information can be gleaned from the websites of highly reputable medical centers, it is not imperative that it instead be presented by a testifying witness. Such information tends to fall somewhere between facts that require adversary procedure to determine and facts of which a court can take judicial notice, but it is closer to the second in a case like this in which the evidence presented by the defendants in the district court was sparse and the appellate court need only determine whether there is a factual dispute sufficient to preclude summary judgment.”
There is an interesting dissent by Judge Hamilton.