Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2015, Volume 28, Number 2
Content
- Belated Thanks for Something I Borrowed
- Can Private Attorney General Actions Be Forced Into Arbitration?
- Demystifying Patent Litigation
- Dutch Treat
- Editor's Foreword This is Not a Eulogy!
- From the Section Chair
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Masthead
- McDermott On Demand: If Only.... Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 2015
- New Lawyers Column: Why I Went to Law School and Chose Not to Work in a Firm
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Table of Contents
- The Mysterious World of Civil Litigation Bonds
- Timing Posttrial Motions: Statutory Amendments Freshen the Bait in Traps for the Unwary
- Where First Amendment Internet Anonymity Rights Collide with Copyright
- Curious Clerks and the Case of the Yellow Hat
Curious Clerks and the Case of the Yellow Hat
By Paula Mitchell
Paula Mitchell
When an appellate court is asked to review a decision that leaves critical fact questions open or unclear, or where the parties’ briefs fail to provide the court with sufficient context — what Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner calls "comprehension-enhancing facts (which help the reader understand a case)" — many judges and law clerks are quick to turn to the Internet to clarify an issue, enhance their comprehension, or confirm their intuition. (See, e.g., Thornburg, The Lure of the Internet and the Limits on Judicial Fact Research (2012) 38:4 A.B.A. Litigation, 40, 41.)
[Page 9]