Supreme Court Justice Wary of the "See Also" Cite – Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe, arguing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wilke v. Robins, learned that for at least one Justice, "see also" signals "something wrong." When Tribe began to discuss cases in response to the suggestion a position lacked authority, Justice Breyer countered: "[Y]ou say 'see also,' which is a sign to me there's something wrong with that case." Tribe replied that there was nothing wrong with the case, but Justice Breyer would repeat his skepticism of "see also" until Tribe could only say he didn't remember why "see also" preceded the case. Litigants take note – the signal before a case citation may be the only part of the citation the judge reads. For more information, see: http://howappealing.law.com, 3/19/07 post. For a link to the oral argument transcript (see pages 44-46) go to: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-219.pdf#page=45.
Judges Citing Fewer Law Review Articles – According to recently published figures, federal courts cited articles from The Harvard Law Review 4,410 times in the 1970s, 1,956 times in the 1990s, and only 937 times from 2000 to now. This pattern is the same at other leading law reviews despite an increase in the courts' caseloads, leading some to conclude that the legal academy is becoming less influential. Certain commentators have speculated that the articles are long and difficult to read, contain too much theory, and don’t engage issues of legal practice. Others suggest that the increased volume of articles has made the good ones hard to find at the same time growth in online legal databases has made them less necessary. While the reasons are up for debate, the trend may force law reviews to find new ways to appeal to a broader legal community. For more information, see: http://volokh.com/posts/1174278270.shtml .