I know of at least one court (ED Mich) that requires something like this. In addition to your regular TOA, you have to identify the key cases for each legal issue.

I admire the creative thought to look for advocacy opportunities, but my first reaction is that this just goes too far, and it could seem like you’re trying to evade page or word limits. It could be a useful tool for oral argument prep, but in a separate, un-filed document for your own use.

But do you then also have to include a little analytical summary of the "key" case? That's required by E.D. Mich. local rules? I'll check it out!

Oh, he was not proposing it or recommending it. He just found it and was surfacing it for discussion. I agree that I like his judgment/advice on stuff!

Do they have "You're So Vain" or "Bust A Move"?

Oh I know; I'm being facetious.Oh I know; I'm being facetious.

My response to "O." as an abbreviation for online:

a man with glasses and a beard is giving a thumbs down sign while watching a baseball game .

ALT: a man with glasses and a beard is giving a thumbs down sign while watching a baseball game .

The rule (with examples): For online supplements to the print publication, use the citation for the print publication, followed by the online supplement name: Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar Harv. L. Rev. F. (n.b. Forum is abbr. b/c T6 abbreviates it that way. There is no abbr. for "online.")

Am I doing it wrong, or is the "lawsky" tag mostly... bad? My feed for that tag seems really spam-ish.

Thanks for your help and support!