4 ms·
I can’t quite agree that the annotations are ‘required reading’ for competent representation of a litigant. Some state’s official printings of statute are prett
by throwaway17_17 7y ago
I can’t quite agree that the annotations are ‘required reading’ for competent representation of a litigant. Some state’s official printings of statute are pretty bare (Louisiana in particular), but Georgia’s official documents are quite thorough. The area of law, the type of arguments, etc are all facets of what types of references make good arguments. I’m not aging the annotations aren’t a good reference, but that some commenters seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on them, instead of other sources.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- alistairSH 7y agoTwo related questions... 1. In a state like LA, where annotations aren't included, would a lawyer purchase an annotated version from a 3rd party? I assume the information contained in the annotations is expected to be known, regardless of how it is obtained. 2. If a state elects to publish annotations as part of the only published code, does that lend any extra weight to the annotations (effectively, by putting them in the same book, and making that book the only copy of the state code, the state has signaled "these notes are the way we intend you to read/interpret/practice the law").
- throwaway17_17 7y agoThe answer to 1 is yes, although it is more common for the information contained in ‘annotations’ to be accessed via Westlaw or Alexis online subscriptions. As to 2, I think the primary evidence for extra weight would be the number of citations to the ‘official’ annotations in rendered opinions, but that it would not be an official jurisprudential rule.