Despite all the convenience and utility of online legal research, it's sad to lose certain byproducts of actually using books. One example of such a loss is the "oh, but look at the next case" (or prior case) phenomenon when using reporters. If you merely pulled up Marriage of Reese (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214 in an online database, you'd miss that the very next case at 73 Cal.App.4th 1225 is Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores. No, they're totally different Reeses, but what are the odds of back-to-back Reeses? You won't get another Reese case until Reese v. Wong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 51, as can be easily determined by using this online database listing here. So I suppose that's something... By way of comparison, there 57 Smith cases in Cal.App.4th--but no two are adjacent!
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Back-to-Back Reese's
Despite all the convenience and utility of online legal research, it's sad to lose certain byproducts of actually using books. One example of such a loss is the "oh, but look at the next case" (or prior case) phenomenon when using reporters. If you merely pulled up Marriage of Reese (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214 in an online database, you'd miss that the very next case at 73 Cal.App.4th 1225 is Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores. No, they're totally different Reeses, but what are the odds of back-to-back Reeses? You won't get another Reese case until Reese v. Wong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 51, as can be easily determined by using this online database listing here. So I suppose that's something... By way of comparison, there 57 Smith cases in Cal.App.4th--but no two are adjacent!