◆ SpookStack

Mr, Boardmat Nr. Belmon Mr, Wobr . : ‘, fi These Days: \ Court Guilty of te Ta Unsafe Practice Mr. Nease___ Mr. Hollman — By George E, Sokolsky — as! ae. (NY Journal American, Oct, cane as 004 aoe a bv In the controversy that is arising over nee Supreme Court oD. Wright ————— Patman of Texas has raised a pertinent question, namely, that instead of J using, at times, material not submitted to it by the justice himself or by his law clerk, , The difficulty arises from the fact that text books, law reviews, | propagandistic material from pressure groups and all sorts of cutside factors enter into the formation of a. decision. Patman says of this that the court in preparing its decisions uses material without notifying couns ao ind He) oz neither sides has the opportunity these theorists and lobbyists.Patman made an interesting observation in regard to a study by the Librafy of Congress of Supreme Court antitrust cases from 1890 to 1950, This study found that in no antitrust case prior to 1940 had the Supreme Court cited as an authority a lawereview article, upon which it relief for decision in the case. "However, the study has sh that commencing in 1940 the influence of Law-review articles and of other publications has grown steadily with the U.S. Supreme, Court in ite sonside ‘ Tt aan / - PY: aloe £7 tion and decision in antitrust cages,,., NOT RECORDED . Do the justices always know who wrote the articeld! Pat AL 8%, reviews? Lawyers spending months prevaring briefs are Suddenly~Tatdd by ‘an » article in a law Jo al which neither side may have read or noticed or considered rd