pageok
pageok
pageok
Misquotations and "Footnote Filching" in Hamdan:

Opinio Juris guest blogger Marko Milanovic has posted a fascinating and provocative item on alleged misquotation of sources and apparent "footnote filching" in the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. According to Milanovic, the Hamdan majority (1) cited an authority for a proposition that is actually contrary to that which the authority supports; (2) selectively cites relevant authority in a misrepresentative manner; and (3) appears to have taken the relevant citation and quotation from an amicus brief submitted by several law professors. Not being an expert on the relevant materials, I am curious to see how others respond to Milanovic's accusations.

Andrew Hyman (mail) (www):
Wow, quite an indictment.
4.30.2007 1:58pm
James Dillon (mail):

(3) appears to have taken the relevant citation and quotation from an amicus brief submitted by several law professors.

Is this bad? Does the law of copyright and plagiarism apply to patently non-commercial judicial writing? I recall my 1L Legal Writing professor telling the class that a lawyer writing a brief should hope to see large chunks of it incorporated into the court's opinion, because it means the court is more likely to find in that lawyer's favor.
4.30.2007 8:04pm