Vol. 53, Issue 3, 2025February 10, 2026 EDT
FOR WANT OF A PINCITE, THE CASE WAS LOST: PONDERING PRECEDENT, PROVENANCE, PLAGIARISM, AND PEDIGREE IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS
FOR WANT OF A PINCITE, THE CASE WAS LOST: PONDERING PRECEDENT, PROVENANCE, PLAGIARISM, AND PEDIGREE IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS
Jared S. Sunshine,
Articles in Vol. 53, Issue 3, 2025
Vol. 53, Issue 3, 2025
- FOR WANT OF A PINCITE, THE CASE WAS LOST: PONDERING PRECEDENT, PROVENANCE, PLAGIARISM, AND PEDIGREE IN JUDICIAL OPINIONSJared S. Sunshine
- SOME LIKE IT HOT AND SOME DO NOT LIKE IT AT ALL (DRAGGED THROUGH THE COURTS)Sarah Bertschy
- A MESSI FUTURE: REVISITING FRASER V. MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER AND THE SINGLE ENTITY DEFENSE IN LIGHT OF O.M. V. NATIONAL WOMEN’S SOCCER LEAGUE AND THE SIGNING OF LIONEL MESSIBen Batchelor
- A DIFFERENT KIND OF PRESSURE: THE SUCCESSES AND SHORTCOMINGS OF OHIO’S NEW STRANGULATION LAW—A TOOL FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE JUSTICECassidy E. Triplett
Jared S. Sunshine, FOR WANT OF A PINCITE, THE CASE WAS LOST: PONDERING PRECEDENT, PROVENANCE, PLAGIARISM, AND PEDIGREE IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS, 53 Capital University Law Review 363 (2026).