I don’t know about you - but I don’t want ANYONE messing with material that they don’t own.
It would be one thing for Justia to remove all cases in which Minor v. Happersett was a citation entirely from its web site.
But, it is a different matter if you remove the citation from a case, but leave the case intact. You have then altered a document that you don’t own.
What if I was a law student and had to refer to a particular case - knowing that I had a test on the material the next day? Then I take the test and it asks for the citations. I know the citations cold EXCEPT for Minor v. Happersett - since it was removed from the text of the case by Justia ...
I suppose it would be ok to leave it on the web site - but only as long as they identify it as an edited document. At least it would give you an opportunity to go to a different web site. But that would kinda defeat the purpose of the scrubbing, wouldn’t it ?
As for me, I ALWAYS use the Cornell Law School web site, if possible. If they don’t have it, I go somewhere else, but I won’t go to Justia any more - don’t trust ‘em ...
I myself an in school, so I ahve access to the library, and the search engines/databases I have access to there are pretty extensive. Including Lexis, IHS Jane’s etc.
It seems this was more directed toward people who would not have had access to a subscription site. It is so disappointing... the one group who needs full information the most gets corrupted info. It’s not right.