[Eugene Volokh, July 11, 2008 at 9:28pm] Trackbacks
Congratulations to Orin,

who not only has two of his articles cited in the Sixth Circuit e-mail privacy en banc, but who has the special privilege of having the dissent deride one of the citations:

Rather than address the facts and law cited by the panel’s opinion, the majority fails to cite one case dealing with electronic communications in the privacy context, instead relying on a single professor’s law review article.

Just goes to show how important that single professor's law review article must be.

Gary Anderson (mail):
Oh good heavens. Here we go. The "academicizing" of the law. Something tells me this thing won't turn out well...

In fact, counting these kinds of citations ... it's kind of like racking up notches in one's bedpost, isn't it?
7.11.2008 10:50pm
FlimFlamSam:
Haha, that is awesome. Congrats Prof. Kerr!
7.11.2008 10:54pm
Mike& (mail):
Mad propers, Orin!
7.11.2008 11:12pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Gary Anderson: I've never heard of a law professor being called a slut for being cited by too many courts.
7.11.2008 11:15pm
Gary Anderson (mail):
Oh, I didn't call him a "slut"... One or two bedpost notches -- hell anything less than 10 -- does not a player make.

But beware of counting up your importance like that. As I said earlier, overemphasizing what the academics think (who generally operate outside the practicalities/subtle realities of life) will not bode well for the law, I think.

It's just rather petty, counting up your citations like that to measure oneself, dontchathink? Hence, the bedpost comparison.
7.11.2008 11:37pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"I've never heard of a law professor being called a slut for being cited by too many courts."


Not a slut-- a stud. Watch that.
7.11.2008 11:45pm
LM (mail):
Oh, snap. Gary Anderson stole my joke.

But he's serious!

Kudos, Orin. I had some doubts at first, but now I'm convinced you could totally take Ilya.
7.11.2008 11:50pm
Smokey:
Props, Orin! You done good.
7.12.2008 1:26am
Lior:
I'm rather confused by the quote from the dissent. Why should citations to decisions on roughly similar matters by other courts be required when a scholarly article is available which addresses the issues on point? Isn't the instant court supposed to apply its own judgment after all?
7.12.2008 2:38am
Kazinski:
It looks like Orin has a virtual monopoly on internet 4th amendment law, shouldn't the FTC be looking into that?
7.12.2008 4:12am
bjcj:
Instant court! Just add hot air!
7.12.2008 7:17am
frankcross (mail):
Apparently if he had a co-author (or a wife?) the article would have been much more impressive.
7.12.2008 11:27am
LM (mail):
frankcross:

Apparently if he had a co-author (or a wife?) the article would have been much more impressive.

Naturally, and (very) roughly analogous to why we're all familiar with the term "grassy knoll."
7.12.2008 2:24pm
Snarky:
Maybe, instead of being unthinkingly self-congratulatory about the "importance" of the law review article, one should ask whether or not the article should be that important.

Volokh has been an uncritical cheerleader for the importance of academic scholarship of late.
7.12.2008 6:40pm
Kazinski:
Snarky,
The judges on the en banc panel thought it was important that is why they cited it. But if you have some reasons why you think it shouldn't be important, why don't you fill us in on them.
7.12.2008 10:21pm