| Abstract: | ABSTRACT Courts are citing to websites within reported judicial opinions—primary authority that attorneys rely on. If a website no longer exists—or has been updated so as to no longer reflect the content the court reviewed—what does that do to an attorney's ability to make an argument or analogize and distinguish? This article reviews published Washington and New York opinions, noting the types of websites cited, examining the viability of links, and analyzing how websites are used in opinions. The author contends that website permanence is not the only problem; lawyers and courts need to be trained in information literacy so that only authentic and credible Internet sources are cited as authority, and encourages librarians to aid in this effort. |
