Amended or superseding opinion
Original research draft · October 2026
Working pattern
[Case name], [current source identifier], [pinpoint] ([court/date]) ([version description if material]).
Capture from the source
Original and replacement documents; dates; docket; changed passage
Check before you use it
Compare the relied-on text between versions and update both locator and analysis.
Common error: Retaining an old quotation after changing the citation creates a false match.
Completed example
The case, docket entries, versions, dates, and textual changes are fictional training facts. No actual replacement opinion or current docket status is represented.
The superseding opinion addresses the inspection record more narrowly. Alder Harbor v. Quartz Marine, No. TRAIN-25-071, slip op. at 9 (Northmere Ct. App. July 17, 2025) (superseding opinion).
Read the supplied source facts
Fictional packet TRAIN-O10 provides two versions of Alder Harbor v. Quartz Marine, docket TRAIN-25-071. The fictional Northmere Court of Appeals issued an original on July 3, 2025, and a superseding opinion on July 17. Original printed page 8 described three inspection dates. The superseding opinion removes that description and places a more limited discussion on printed page 9. The docket entry expressly states that the July 17 opinion replaces the July 3 opinion. The draft still quotes the removed three-date description but now displays the later date.
Why this works
The citation and proposition must refer to the same version. Replacing July 3 with July 17 while retaining the deleted wording would make the citation falsely appear to verify that quotation. Compare the relied-on passage, surrounding qualifications, disposition, and pagination before updating the source card. Preserve both files in the research record, but mark which one is superseded and which one supports the final sentence. Here the repair requires revising the prose, not merely the date and page. The version parenthetical is useful because replacement is material to the discussion being written.
When the facts change
If the assignment instead examines how the court revised its explanation, the original may be cited explicitly as the superseded July 3 version, followed by the July 17 version and a precise description of the change. Give each its own locator. Do not imply that a retained historical copy remains the operative decision or that the replacement adopted text it actually removed.
Apply the receiving court or publication’s requirements. These working forms do not establish citation permission, precedential weight, or support for a legal proposition.