Editor Notes

Editor’s note on modifications to the cases included in this book

In editing judicial opinions, I have maintained the original language and much of the formatting except as follows:

I have omitted most judges’ names and other references to the case disposition that were not deemed relevant. I have corrected obvious non-substantive typographical errors, freely inserted or removed paragraph breaks and removed headers in many instances. I have indicated most substantive omissions with bracketed asterisks. Where asterisks exist without brackets they are found in the original. In some cases, I explain omissions, such as when I have removed a section of substantive analysis or reserved discussion for later in the course. I have indicated omitted citations and footnotes with brackets as per the legend below. In cases that cite extensively to the parties’ briefs or trial record, I have sometimes opted to drop citations without signaling doing so in order to declutter the text. Any footnotes in the opinions are original to the opinions unless indicated as Editor’s notes, but footnotes will not correspond to the same number as they did in the original citation. I have also tried to reduce visual clutter and reading time by generally cutting out parallel citations to legal authorities. The conventions adopted by different courts and in different eras mean the reader will see different editorial choices regarding the organization of judicial opinions and relevant authorities. Rather than painstakingly trying to convert to some artificially uniform presentation, I have left them largely as is.

[c]: indicates that a citation has been omitted [Letter is capitalized or not depending on whether it started a sentence]

[cc]: indicates that multiple citations have been omitted

[fn]: indicates that a footnote has been omitted

[fns]: indicates that multiple footnotes have been omitted

*** : indicates asterixes in the original

[***]: indicates omissions from published opinions