What must a researcher do before citing a case, according to the material?

• A. Read the case itself and analyze it
• B. Rely on the digest for authority
• C. Only read headnotes
• D. Copy the citation from a digest

Answer: (A)

The main idea being tested is that you must verify a case directly by reading and analyzing it before you cite it. Digests and headnotes are helpful tools, but they’re secondary sources and can omit details or misstate the scope of the holding. Only by reading the actual opinion can you understand the precise holding, the facts the court relied on, the reasoning, and any language that might limit or distinguish the ruling. This lets you judge whether the case truly supports your argument, whether it applies in your jurisdiction, and whether it remains good law after any later developments.

Relying on a digest for authority isn’t enough because it’s a summary, not the authoritative text. Reading only headnotes misses context and can misrepresent what the court actually decided. Copying a citation from a digest can propagate an incorrect or outdated citation. After reading the case, you can confirm current status with a citator, but the essential first step is to read and analyze the case itself.