Reading opinions written by the great Posner are different from opinions of other judges for several reasons. He doesn’t cram ten ideas in one sentence with a flurry of Latin legal terms that do more to confuse you rather than provide a clear explanation of the case. He also throws in quick jabs at various actors in the dramatic play that is a legal case to keep you interested in whats going. But Posner does something else that is uncommon among judges. He cites the internet. Four recent of Posner’s opinions show his internet savviness:
- Brian T. Sullivan v. Michael R. Glenn, Jr., a bankruptcy decided on Apr. 2, 2015 includes 2 internet citations.
- Ramon Alvarado v. Corporate Cleaning Services, a civil case decided on Apr. 1, 2015 includes 2 internet citations.
- Kevin Voigt v. Carolyn Colvin, a civil case decided on Mar. 26, 2015 includes 4 internet citations.
- Joyce Hutchens v. Chicago Board of Education, a civil case decided on Mar. 24, 2015 includes 3 internet citations.
While other judges in the circuit do cite to documents that can be accessed online, they do not cite to internet sources themselves. Posner may simply be ahead of the game. While law libraries across the country begin to remove print materials and new databases and electronic sources emerge to improve legal research, it of course would be no time when legal documents began to cite internet sources. Posner may in fact be doing what he always advocates, which is making the law easy to understand and accessible to the average person. Not everyone has access to journals, treatises, and other academic materials often cited in legal documents. Given the vast growth of internet access, by citing to internet sources, Posner ensures that anyone reading his opinions can fully understand what each proposition means.
There is no doubt what Posner is doing is also dangerous. The problem with the internet is that anyone can write anything and have it published online – sort of like this blog. This means people can be relying on inaccurate information. This could be disastrous in court opinions which lay down the laws that govern the nation. So before any internet source is cited, legal advocates must be sure the source is reliable.
Either way, it appears the move is being made to using internet sources to supplement explanations in court opinions. We all have the responsibility to ensure the sources are used appropriately. And who knows…maybe soon enough we will be able to cite the source where every research project truly begins: Wikipedia.
Posner is a great jurist, but he risks stepping beyond the bounds of an appellate court’s fact-finding ability. Take for example, the case in which he had his clerks try on protective gear to see how quickly it could be donned. See Mitchell v. JCG Industries, No. 13-2115,
LikeLike