Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2015, Volume 28, Number 2
Content
- Dutch Treat
- McDermott On Demand: If Only.... Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 2015
- Where First Amendment Internet Anonymity Rights Collide with Copyright
- The Mysterious World of Civil Litigation Bonds
- Demystifying Patent Litigation
- Can Private Attorney General Actions Be Forced Into Arbitration?
- Editor's Foreword This is Not a Eulogy!
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Belated Thanks for Something I Borrowed
- Masthead
- Curious Clerks and the Case of the Yellow Hat
- From the Section Chair
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- New Lawyers Column: Why I Went to Law School and Chose Not to Work in a Firm
- Table of Contents
- Timing Posttrial Motions: Statutory Amendments Freshen the Bait in Traps for the Unwary
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]