The Law Working Itself Pure:

How Appealing reports:

The error in a recent Ninth Circuit decision that Eugene Volokh pointed out yesterday in this post at "The Volokh Conspiracy" (and later linked here by me) has today been eradicated from the annals of the law thanks to an order amending opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued.

Richard Bellamy (mail):
I would assume that the relevant meaning of "coterminous" here is definition 3 from

Having the same scope, range of meaning, or extent in time.

How can you properly say that the usage of a phrase is "coterminous" with a 1825 opinion when you have just recently identified a citation from 1788? The judicial usage of the phrase is therefore obviously NOT coterminous with 1825, and it had been used for an extent of time at least 37 years earlier.

They fixed the wrong part of the sentence.
5.9.2006 2:10pm
Res Ipsa:
Hilarious! The caption takes up 7 pages to make a one-word and one-citation change.
5.9.2006 3:08pm
Cornellian (mail):
I guess their clerks must be VC readers. That's a good thing.
5.9.2006 4:38pm

I guess their clerks must be VC readers. That's a good thing.

Even better than that -- Judge Kozinski is almost assuredly a VC reader.
5.9.2006 9:50pm