Q 1. Can you identify ANY SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES between these two versions of the Garratt case? If so, what are they?

(1) The unedited version of this opinion provides a lot more personal detail as to the NAMES of the PARTIES , as well as their ATTORNEYS.

(2) The unedited version of this opinion includes more legal citation references that enable attorneys to find (and refer to) specific passages within the opinion once the decision has been published in the official (as well as unofficial) reporters. For example, the specific citation to the Washington (2d) Reporter is also included in the unedited version of this opinion. (They are represented by the *200, *201, etc. references that appear throughout the unedited version of this opinion). All of these page references have been removed from the edited version.

(3) The edited version of the Garratt case has removed all of the NOTES (a total of 9, altogether) that were included by the Court in its original version. Aside from Note [1] which was reserved for the official “cite” of the case when it was subsequently reported in the Pacific (2d) Reporter, the remaining 8 of these Notes were inserted at various specific places throughout the original text of the Court’s unedited opinion, and then later individual “Headnote” captions or summaries will be added later when the case is finally published. These Headnotes have all been removed in the edited version of the case.

(4) One particularly noticeable difference between these two different versions of the Garratt case is the omission of MANY (although not quite all) of the legal citations to various individual cases and other legal authorities that are included in the unedited version of the opinion. These citations are intended to provide legal authority and support for the various legal statements and propositions made by the court in its unedited version of the opinion. The edited version of the opinion includes only a few of these legal authorities that are provided primarily for educational and teaching purposes when otherwise appropriate.

(5) Finally, and perhaps the most significant difference that you may notice in the edited version of the Garratt opinion is the omission altogether of certain more lengthy portions of the original text. In the edited casebook version of this case, these omissions are usually indicated by the insertion into the text of ellipses (a set of three periods . . . ) used in place of the omitted material. Ellipses can be used to indicate the omission of a single word, or phrase, as well as an entire sentence or even entire paragraphs from the original unedited version of the opinion. Since the edited version of the case is intended primarily to be used for legal teaching purposes, often it is very helpful to simply omit or exclude certain entire portions of the court’s discussion in an unedited opinion that may pertain to non-relevant issues or subjects, or also that may simply add unnecessary complication or create additional confusion in the court’s discussion when that discussion is being provided for teaching purposes. You will also notice that in a few places the edited version of the Garratt case may even add certain ADDITIONAL material that is NOT included in the original unedited version of the text in order to shorten and/or paraphrase the actual language that was used. In other instances, somewhat different language has been added to the text merely to clarify the original language (hopefully) without changing its intended meaning. Whenever present, these types of “edits” are always included [within bracketed portions] of the text.

© 2016 Edward C. Martin Contact Me