Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Explain why the Brown URL supplements rather than replaces its reporter citation in this chapter.
- A sound answer
The reporter citation identifies the case and precise historical passage independently of the access route. The CourtListener URL helps readers reach the inspected copy. Its cluster number is a database access identifier, not reporter pagination. A receiving rule may determine whether to include the supplemental URL; its presence does not certify subsequent treatment or make the opinion merely a generic webpage.
- Why it works
An electronic access route does not change a reported judicial opinion's underlying source category. Reporter volume, reporter name, first page, and pinpoint preserve a durable identification independent of the website hosting the copy. The URL can assist retrieval under the applicable convention, but it cannot supply a missing reporter pinpoint or resolve the decision's present precedential status.
- A tempting mistake
Do not use the CourtListener URL's numeric identifier as a page number. It identifies a database item rather than the passage at reporter page 495.
- Check your work
Locate the same opinion and passage through the reporter fields, then confirm that the supplemental URL opens the inspected copy.
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
Build a training web citation from the supplied Harbor checklist packet, preserving its actual fictional fields and label.
- A sound answer
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
Harbor Records Office, Filing Checklist, Harbor Records Site (May 1, 2025), https://example.org/harbor/checklist. A locator to the Signatures heading can be added when useful for the actual recommendation. These fields come from the fictional packet and reserved-domain URL. The supplied Chapter 15 source recommends signing the cover sheet; it is not an actual agency resource or a verified notice-period rule.
- Why it works
The packet supplies an institutional author, item title, site title, date, and direct address. Preserve their different functions instead of replacing the item title with the institution's name. The source's recommendation concerns a cover-sheet signature, so any accompanying sentence must describe that recommendation rather than a legal command or another exercise's notice period.
- A tempting mistake
Do not import a rule from the fictional Harbor statute or capstone simply because the institutional names resemble one another. Each packet supplies its own source and proposition.
- Check your work
Match every citation field to the Harbor checklist packet, then compare the sentence with the supplied Signatures recommendation. The example.org address is a fictional training URL, not a live source to retrieve.
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Fictional training example — not legal authority. A downloaded report's timestamp is 2026, but its title page states 2024. Which date is publication information and which is access information?
- A sound answer
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
The title page's 2024 date is publication information. The 2026 download timestamp is access information. Preserve both separately in the research card, and use the source-specific publication/version fields in the full citation. A later download does not create a later edition or prove updates occurred. If the file actually has revision information, inspect and record it independently.
- Why it works
A report's own publication date identifies the publication event. The download date describes the researcher's later access. Keeping them distinct preserves the source's temporal identity and avoids implying a revision that never occurred. If a cover, revision notice, and file metadata give different dates, determine what each actually describes before choosing the citation's date field.
- A tempting mistake
Do not overwrite 2024 with the local file's 2026 creation time. Downloading creates a local copy; it does not publish a new edition of the report.
- Check your work
Find the date printed by the report and the separately recorded retrieval timestamp. Use each only for the event it documents.
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Fictional training example — not legal authority. An unpaginated webpage has a heading “Signatures.” Your sentence relies on that section. Explain a useful locator without inventing a page number.
- A sound answer
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
Identify the Signatures heading as the actual section locator, with the source's full identity and direct URL. Do not invent page 1 for an unpaginated HTML item. A stable paragraph or anchor can also help if supplied and meaningful. The locator should direct a reader to the evidence rather than mimic print pagination that the source does not possess.
- Why it works
An unpaginated webpage still has an organization the reader can use. The supplied heading identifies the relevant portion without pretending the page has print pagination. If a stable section anchor exists, it can improve retrieval, but the source title and URL remain necessary. A useful locator reflects the source's actual structure rather than a guessed equivalent.
- A tempting mistake
Do not cite page 1 just because a browser's print preview puts the passage on its first sheet. Print settings can change that sheet count.
- Check your work
Can another reader find the same heading without reproducing your browser's paper size, zoom level, or print margins?
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
A saved PDF has the same SHA-256 checksum today as when you downloaded it. Explain what that comparison establishes and why it does not establish that the document states current law.
- A sound answer
A matching SHA-256 checksum indicates that the saved PDF has the same bytes as the copy represented by the earlier checksum. It does not establish that the text is current law. A file can remain unchanged while the law changes, and an unchanged copy can preserve an error. Keep the document's identity and version separate from this file-comparison result.
- Why it works
A checksum is a computed identifier for bytes. Comparing a later file's checksum with the saved value can reveal a change, but the result says nothing about whether the original proposition was true or legally current. A matching file may faithfully preserve an error. Reading, source identification, and any signature validation each answer different questions.
- A tempting mistake
Do not report source authenticated merely because your hash matches the value you computed yourself. That comparison does not independently establish the issuing institution's identity.
- Check your work
State exactly what was compared: this saved file against this recorded checksum. Keep legal support and source-authentication findings in separate fields.
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Fictional training example — not legal authority. The final URL redirects to a revised report with different words. Describe the version and proposition checks needed.
- A sound answer
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
Compare the cited version with the redirected item, identify the actual edition/update dates, and inspect the relied-on passage in the intended source. Decide whether to cite a preserved original version or update the proposition and citation to the new version. Record the change and any limits. A live link to a different text is not equivalent to verification of the original sentence.
- Why it works
A redirect can preserve access while changing the destination's text or version. The writer must decide which temporal source the sentence actually uses. Historical discussion may require the preserved original; present discussion may require revising both sentence and citation after inspection of the updated text. The decision follows the proposition, not a preference for whichever URL returns fastest.
- A tempting mistake
Do not mark the old citation verified merely because the redirect ends at an official domain. It may now lead to a different edition with different wording.
- Check your work
Compare the relevant passages side by side and record whether the claim, locator, or version identification changed.
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Fictional training example — not legal authority. A web item gives an institution but no individual author. What should the source card preserve rather than invent?
- A sound answer
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
Preserve the named institution as the responsible author/issuer where appropriate and record that no individual author is supplied. Do not invent an employee or personal name. Collect the item title, website, dates, URL, and locator actually available. Institutional identity can be valid source information without guessing who physically wrote the page. Under the baseline, omit a repeated institutional-author field when the website title already makes the owner clear; that omission does not erase the institution from the source record.
- Why it works
Authorship should follow the source's own attribution. A corporate or institutional issuer can be the responsible source even when no employee is named. Avoid duplicating the institutional name mechanically if the citation convention treats the site title as sufficient identification, but retain the actual issuer in your research card so the attribution decision remains traceable.
- A tempting mistake
Do not invent a personal byline from a contact address or a staff directory. The person answering questions may not be the author of the item.
- Check your work
Can you point to the source's institutional attribution, and does the final citation leave that institution identifiable without an unsupported personal name?
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Explain why a successful link-response check is insufficient to mark an example's substantive support verified.
- A sound answer
A response check establishes only that a destination responds in the tested manner. The page may contain a different item, a revised edition, a login screen, or no supporting passage. Substantive verification requires matching the item/version and reading the relevant text against the sentence. Keep transport/link status distinct from source and proposition statuses.
- Why it works
Network success is a transport observation. Source verification additionally requires identity and version matching; proposition verification requires reading the relevant content and qualifications. A server can return a normal response for a login page, replacement item, or error message. These outcomes show why an automated availability test cannot close a substantive source-checking task.
- A tempting mistake
Do not treat a green link-check result as a finding that the cited sentence is supported. The tool may never have examined any passage.
- Check your work
After opening the link, identify the item and version and locate the supporting words. Report availability and support as separate results.
Show the exerciseHide the exercise
Fictional training example — not legal authority. The Harbor Records Office publishes a video titled Reading a Docket on Harbor Training Video, dated May 2, 2025, at https://example.org/harbor/docket-video. At 3:20 the narrator explains how to locate an attachment number; that explanation ends at 3:42. Supply a useful training citation with a temporal pinpoint using the electronic-source principles taught here, then identify what must be checked before quoting the narrator. No receiving publication's specialized video format is supplied.
- A sound answer
Fictional training example — not legal authority.
A useful training form is Harbor Records Office, Reading a Docket, Harbor Training Video, at 3:20–3:42 (May 2, 2025), https://example.org/harbor/docket-video. The interval identifies the supplied explanation rather than a nonexistent page. Before quoting, listen to the words at that interval and the surrounding context, identify the narrator's role accurately, and compare any transcript with the recording. No transcript accuracy is assumed.
- Why it works
The medium's own time coordinate replaces a print-page locator. The interval selects the supplied explanation and avoids implying that all statements in the video support the sentence. The training form preserves creator, title, platform, date, and access route. A required publication style might arrange these fields differently, so this is a transparent model rather than a universal video formula.
- A tempting mistake
Do not quote an unverified automatic caption or identify the narrator as a judge merely because the video discusses court records. Neither fact is supplied.
- Check your work
For this packet, confirm that the supplied interval is 3:20–3:42 and preserve the fictional label. With a real recording, play that interval and its context before verifying a quotation; the fictional URL is not a source you can play.
- Previous
- Chapter 14 answers