◆ SpookStack

I + eNO das mee avert salient ~ “Research conducted by the. Library of Congres Vegareiwe alt of the decisions made by .the Supreme Court of the United States in antitruat cases from 1890. ‘to 1987 discloses that in. no antitrust case prior.to 19490 “had the Supreme Court cited as-an authority a law- review article on the point th issue and upon which it. relied for Gecision in the. case. However, ibe away has shown that. commencing in 1940 the influence of ' Jaw-review articles and of other publications hag grown ‘ _atéadily with the Supreme Court of the United Btates _1n ite consideration and decision in antitrust cases <a” ; ee ‘Element of Surprise “PRR ES ott . Do the justices’ always know who wrote the aiticias ‘in the law reviews? Are these ‘articles always algned?. | Do the justices study the backgrounds of the men who wrote those articise to determine whether what they, ' gay is based’ ‘upon ‘pound scholarship or is propaganda i for a cause? Representative Patman makes the point , that In two important cases, the citations, one from | the Harvard Law Review and ‘the other from the Yale ‘Law Journal bore no signatures, the authors of the material being anonymous. Perhaps the justice of she ‘Supreme Court who used these items in his opinies “eommunicated with the editors of these publications to obtain the necessary information. But counsel for neither side could know In advance that these items would be cited ina nrevalling Sunreme Court decision. There 1s an ‘unnecessary element of surprise which could cause a miscarriage of justice, - te , Lawyers spending months preparing briefs, at enormous expense to their clients, are suddenly faced by an article in a law journal which neither side may. ‘Vave read or noticed or considered worthwhile, : In fact, for all we know, the justice, in a Summer mood, m hipseli. have written the anonymous articie which he . now cites as authoritative. It is not a ESTE practice, .~,.