Some­times read­ing cas­es just makes me feel dirty when I see the aca­d­e­m­ic dis­hon­esty that goes on.  Courts will take things out of con­text (much like law stu­dents, ha), manip­u­late lan­guage, and pick and choose “bind­ing cas­es.”  The best exam­ple of this is Unit­ed States v. Men­doza-Gon­za­lez, 520 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008).  The court basi­cal­ly says that, because a dis­trict court in anoth­er cir­cuit (a low­er court that is not bound by this court’s prece­dent) decid­ed one thing, and this court cit­ed that case for a sort of relat­ed propo­si­tion in anoth­er case, the dis­trict court case became very per­sua­sive, if not bind­ing, law.

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.