This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The company it started as in 2013 is not the company it is today. In fact, as I described in my very first post about Casetext , its original vision was a crowdsourced caselaw library that its users would edit and annotate and then have other users upvote or downvote the annotations. Casetext Adds Crowdsourced Q&As.
by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy Many characterize the law of copyright preemption of contracts as a circuit split. But that undersells the level of inconsistency in courts’ interpretations of the law of copyright preemption. Which is probably a big part of the reason that many judges have been eager to distance themselves from it.
Court decisions are public information — they’re authored by judges and issued publicly to tell us what the law is, and why. We all should have free, easy access to the law, and no one should gain competitive advantage from having privileged access to the law itself. Caselaw books waiting to be scanned.
The company it started as in 2013 is not the company it is today. In fact, as I described in my very first post about Casetext , its original vision was a crowdsourced caselaw library that its users would edit and annotate and then have other users upvote or downvote the annotations. Casetext Adds Crowdsourced Q&As.
Court decisions are public information — they’re authored by judges and issued publicly to tell us what the law is, and why. We all should have free, easy access to the law, and no one should gain competitive advantage from having privileged access to the law itself. Caselaw books waiting to be scanned.
It was unveiled nationally in 2013. It’s been used nationally since 2013. What we see over time is that the risk levels, and the risk recommendations have become more stringent between the time that that risk tool was first started in 2012, and 2013. I have been trying since 2013, to get this information.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content