I hope readers have found the two case digest pages to be useful. (If you haven’t found these yet, look at the menu bar at the top of the browser window. One is labeled “Topical Digest”, the other “Digest by Jurisdiction”. If you’re reading this on a feed reader, you can find the topical digest here and the digest by jurisdiction here).
I’d like to try to increase the usefulness of the digests by signaling to readers when I think a case is wrongly decided. Because I’m trying to cover all or nearly all of the US cases within Letters Blogatory’s self-imposed scope limitations, I’m unavoidably covering cases that, in my opinion, come out wrong. Two of the cases discussed in my review of Gustavo Lamelas’s recent article are cases in point. So what I am in the process of doing is to digest the cases that I think are wrong in color. You can click the link, read what I have to say about the case, and then make your own judgment. I expect to have this finished within a few days.
One other housekeeping matter: I’d like to request that those of you who subscribe via RSS consider canceling your current subscription and resubscribing using the RSS link on the right-hand column of the blog. I have recently switched to Feedburner, which will help me to keep better track of the number of readers on RSS, but only if the readers subscribe to the feed via the link I provide. This is just a request, but getting a better handle on the volume of readers who subscribe via RSS will help me to continue to justify to my colleagues spending time each day bringing Letters Blogatory to you!
Leave a Reply