Westlaw hates me

I’m Bluebooking, so, by very definition, I am not having fun right now.  But then Westlaw decided to play a mean little trick on me.

I was double-checking a bunch of statutes so that I was sure to be Bluebooking them correctly, and, when I arrived at the South Carolina anti-hazing state (S.C. CODE ANN. § § 16-3-510 to 16-3-540 (2005)), I noticed a little red flag had appeared. Little red flags are bad things to find in Westlaw because it means that the authority is no longer good.

I clicked on the little red flag to find out what had changed and learned that H.B. 3085 had amended § 16-3-510(C) to read: “Identifying information includes, but is not limited to:” and then a list of acceptable forms of identification.

Besides the fact that there is no § 16-3-510(A) or (B) to support the amendment of a (C), this has nothing to do with hazing. The official title of the section is “Hazing unlawful; definitions.” What is this identifying information doing here???

Clearly it is misplaced. Probably just to screw up my comment. Yep, it’s a big conspiracy. Definitely.


One response to “Westlaw hates me

  1. Westlaw hates everyone. Lexis too. I spent twenty minutes going through my search results for Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 415(c) (custody of discovery) wondering why none of the cases had to do with discovery. OH! That’s because they all cite Rule 451 (not 415) and some yahoo typed it in all dyslexic!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s