This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Skip to main content
Capital University Law Review
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Administrative Law
    • Advertising Regulation
    • Arbitration
    • Bankruptcy
    • Business Associations
    • Children & Family
    • Civil Rights
    • Constitutional Law & Criminal Procedure
    • Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
    • Cyber Security
    • Economic Regulation
    • Environmental
    • Estates & Trusts
    • Health & Healthcare
    • Immigration & Nationalization
    • Intellectual Property
    • International
    • Introductions & Dedications
    • Judges & Courts
    • Labor & Employment
    • Legal Education
    • Legislation
    • Oil, Gas & Mineral
    • Personal Injury/General Tort
    • Professional Responsibility
    • Rules of Evidence & Civil Procedure
    • Social Security/Disability
    • Tax
    • Teaching Law
    • Technology
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • search
  • RSS feed (opens a modal with a link to feed)

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:35565/feed
Judges & Courts
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

Jared S. Sunshine,
Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash
Capital University Law Review
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).

View more stats

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system