Should you cite law review articles or treatises?

Last week's excellent LACBA Appellate Courts Committee program, Meet the New Justices, featured 2/3's Anne Egerton (pronounced "Edge-er-ton"), 2/5's Carl Moor, and 2/6's Martin Tangeman. The program covered personal background (e.g., How did you get into the law and then onto the bench? What do you do for enjoyment/exercise? [boxing, soccer, cycling, respectively]), how lawyers can do a better job (e.g., with briefing and at oral argument), tentative decisions, writs, whether unanimous decisions are important, and many other topics.

One question was "How do you feel about citations to law review articles or treatises?" Justice Egerton said she wouldn't necessarily criticize such citations. Justice Moor answered that the most persuasive authority is case law, preferably Supreme Court precedent, but if a case is "cutting edge," then it's ok to cite to law review articles. Justice Tangeman elaborated that if you cite a law review article, he'll assume that there's no law on this topic (or that the law is against your position!). He also explained that when he was a superior court judge, he like treatise citations. But now as a Justice, he doesn't need (or want) these, echoing the point that case law is the real authority to be citing, and what he needs to draft opinions.

• Today's DJ has Bill would force state court judges to write candidate statements: A bill proposed last week would require state Supreme Court and appellate justices to file candidate statements when standing in a retention election.
• Here's a blog post with Advice for lawyers preparing their first oral argument
• For another Jameson v. Desta reversal, see here.
• Also of note: PACER Fees Harm Judiciary's Credibility, Posner Says in Class Action Brief