Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Identify Sources To Update Or Expand Research

12 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Identify Sources To Update Or Expand ResearchQuestion 1 of 12

Jordan is updating a memorandum on whether a post-sale covenant not to compete is enforceable when the seller later starts a competing business. Her research file contains: (1) Cascade Health Systems v. O'Brien, a 2016 decision of the state intermediate appellate court; (2) a citator report for Cascade showing no subsequent appellate history and four citing references: two state intermediate appellate decisions and two federal district court orders applying state law; (3) an online digest for the state. The most relevant headnote in Cascade is indexed at Digest Topic 92, Key Number 110: Contracts—Covenants Not to Compete—Sale of Business Exception.

Which research step would best identify additional state appellate decisions addressing the sale-of-business exception?

Filter the citator report for Cascade to citing references that discuss the case's second headnote, then retrieve each citing decision in full and synthesize the four cases.

Use Digest Topic 92, Key Number 110 in the online digest to retrieve state appellate decisions indexed under that classification, then scan the headnotes for later decisions addressing the exception.

Run a full-text search in a general news database for the phrase 'covenant not to compete sale of business exception' and collect client alerts mentioning Cascade.

Check the annotations to the state business code for the term 'noncompetition agreement' and read only cases that cite the 2016 decision.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Identify Sources To Update Or Expand Research

Practice Identify Sources To Update Or Expand Research in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Identify Sources To Update Or Expand Research, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Which research step would best identify additional state appellate decisions addressing the sale-of-business exception?

Filter the citator report for Cascade to citing references that discuss the case's second headnote, then retrieve each citing decision in full and synthesize the four cases.
Use Digest Topic 92, Key Number 110 in the online digest to retrieve state appellate decisions indexed under that classification, then scan the headnotes for later decisions addressing the exception. (correct answer)
Run a full-text search in a general news database for the phrase 'covenant not to compete sale of business exception' and collect client alerts mentioning Cascade.
Check the annotations to the state business code for the term 'noncompetition agreement' and read only cases that cite the 2016 decision.

Explanation: Whenever you see a legal research question, ask: "Does this tool find cases by legal issue, or only cases tied to one specific case?" That distinction is central here. You need additional state appellate decisions on the sale-of-business exception, not just cases that already cite Cascade. The best step is to use Digest Topic 92, Key Number 110 in the online digest. Digests organize case law by legal topic and key number, so that classification retrieves state appellate decisions indexed under "Contracts—Covenants Not to Compete—Sale of Business Exception." Scanning headnotes then lets you identify later decisions addressing that exception, even if they do not cite Cascade. The citator approach—filtering citing references to the case's second headnote and retrieving each citing decision—would only find cases that already discuss Cascade. That is useful for updating one case, but it will not uncover independent appellate decisions on the exception. Similarly, a full-text news database search for client alerts mentioning Cascade gathers secondary commentary, not primary appellate authority, and is far from comprehensive. Finally, checking annotations to the state business code and reading only cases that cite the 2016 decision is too narrow: the sale-of-business exception may be governed by common law rather than the business code, and limiting yourself to Cascade-citing cases repeats the citator's blind spot. Remember the pattern: citators track a case; digests track an issue. For a research question asking about "additional decisions addressing" a legal rule, go to the digest first.

Question 2

Marcus is writing a motion and needs to know whether State v. Dell, a 2009 state supreme court decision, remains good law. His citator report for Dell shows: No direct history. Citing references: 31. Treatment: distinguished (4), questioned (2), explained (3), cited (22). The citator's entries for the two questioned cases contain one-sentence summaries: one says 'Questioned as contrary to the modern trend,' and the other says 'Questioned on grounds not relevant to the holding here.'

What should Marcus do to responsibly determine whether Dell is still good law?

Read the two cases flagged as 'questioned' in full, focusing on whether the courts rejected Dell's reasoning or merely criticized a peripheral point. (correct answer)
Treat the 'questioned' flags as controlling and revise the motion to avoid any reliance on Dell.
Read only the cases flagged as 'distinguished,' because distinguishing is the only treatment that can affect a holding.
Conclude that Dell remains valid because there is no direct history and only two cases carry a cautionary treatment flag.

Explanation: When a citator report shows a case has been "questioned," that is a caution flag, not a death sentence. Your job is to determine whether the later court actually undermined the case's holding or just noted a disagreement on a side point. A citator flag is a research clue, not a controlling authority. Here, reading the two questioned cases in full is exactly right. One says Dell is contrary to the modern trend; the other questions it on grounds "not relevant to the holding." Those are very different levels of threat. You must read them to see whether the criticism attacks Dell's central reasoning or only a peripheral observation. If the holding survives the criticism, Dell can still be good law. Treating the "questioned" flags as controlling would be a mistake: citator treatments are editorial signals, not court orders, and they never by themselves invalidate a case. Similarly, reading only the distinguished cases is too narrow — distinguished cases may limit Dell, but the questioned cases could reveal genuine doubt about its validity, so ignoring them is dangerous. And concluding Dell remains valid merely because there is no direct history misses the point: "no direct history" only means it hasn't been overruled or affirmed on appeal; heavy criticism in later opinions can still make reliance risky. On exam day, whenever you see negative citator treatment, remember: flag first, then read. Ask whether the criticism goes to the holding or to dicta — that distinction determines whether the case is still good law.

Question 3

Kara is researching a federal statute known only as the 'Veteran Small Business Opportunity Act of 2018.' Her research file contains a Popular Name Table entry: 'Veteran Small Business Opportunity Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-250, 132 Stat. 1234, see 15 U.S.C. § 631 note; Title 15 generally.' It also contains a blog post saying the act has been amended and renumbered and a law review article discussing its original text.

After consulting the Popular Name Table, which source should Kara consult to obtain the current codified text of the act's substantive provisions?

The law review article, because it explains how the 2018 act has been amended and renumbered.
The United States Code sections identified by the Popular Name Table, using the main text and the notes to check for subsequent amending session laws. (correct answer)
The original Statutes at Large page for Pub. L. 115-250, because it is the official text and is controlling until the next edition of the Code.
The note under 15 U.S.C. § 631, because it reprints the complete text of the act as enacted and will include amendments.

Explanation: When you need the current text of a federal statute, think of the Popular Name Table as a finding aid, not the final answer. It tells you that Pub. L. 115-250 is codified mainly in Title  15, with a note under 15 U.S.C. §631. The right next step is to go to those U.S. Code sections and read the main text plus the notes: the main text gives the codified current law, and the notes collect subsequent amending session laws, so you can detect amendments and renumbering. Thus the choice to consult the U.S. Code sections identified by the table is correct. The law review article fails because it is secondary authority and, by its own description, discusses the act's original text — useful background, not evidence of current law. The original Statutes at Large page is the official text as originally enacted, but it is a snapshot frozen in 2018; it cannot show later amendments, and confidentiality remains authoritative for the original enactment but not for current text. The note under 15 U.S.C. §631 also is tempting, but a section note typically contains short title, amendment history, or related provisions — it does not reprint the complete substantive text of the act, and unless Congress drafted a "stand-alone" note with full text (unlikely here), it cannot supply the substantive provisions. A useful habit: after the Popular Name Table sends you to a Code section, always check both the main text and the notes for subsequent session laws before relying on it; that is how "current" is established.

Question 4

A bill enacted in this state two weeks ago amends the state limited liability company act. The official bound code has not been updated, and the pocket part will not be issued for months. The state legislature's website posts enacted bills as session laws within days, and the state's online annotated code has a page for the LLC act that says 'Last updated: end of the previous legislative session.'

To quote the current text of the amended LLC provision, which source should the associate consult first?

The current pocket part of the official bound code, because it is the most authoritative print source.
The state administrative agency's implementing regulation, because it will restate the new statutory text.
The online annotated code page, because it is an online source with a stated currency date.
The session law posted on the legislature's website, because it is the enacted text and is available before codification. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a question about legal research and currentness, remember: before you worry about which source is most authoritative, check which source actually contains the current law. The legislature amended the LLC act two weeks ago, but the official bound code and pocket part are not yet updated. The session law posted on the legislature's website is the enacted text itself and is available before codification, so it is the correct source to quote for the current provision. It is a primary source, and a session law remains authoritative until it is compiled into the code. The pocket part of the official bound code is wrong because, while authoritative, it does not yet include an amendment enacted two weeks ago; pocket parts lag behind new session laws. The state administrative agency's implementing regulation is also wrong—regulations interpret or implement statutes, but they do not restate or replace statutory text, and they cannot be quoted as the LLC provision itself. The online annotated code page is a trap: although it states a currency date, that date is the end of the previous legislative session, which means it necessarily omits this new amendment. Its clear disclosure of being outdated should immediately disqualify it. As a strategy, always identify the most recent primary source: check session laws when a statute was just amended, and verify each source's update date before relying on it.

Question 5

An associate is researching a medical-device manufacturer's duty to warn in a products liability case. The file contains the state supreme court's decision in Ruiz v. Advanced Implants, 487 P.3d 320 (2022), and the following citator report for that case:

Ruiz v. Advanced Implants — no direct history. Citing references:

Tran v. Memorial Hospital, 512 P.3d 745 (Ct. App. 2025) (distinguishes Ruiz because the alleged failure to warn ran to the prescribing physician, not to the patient).
In re DaVinci Implant Litigation, 2024 WL 881123 (D. Del. 2024) (unpublished) (follows Ruiz).
Kramer v. Stryker Surgical, 518 P.3d 900 (2026) (criticizes Ruiz's reasoning but applies it).

The associate wants to update the research and find additional decisions on the learned-intermediary exception.

Which of the following is the most appropriate research strategy?

Read Tran and Kramer in full; run both through an online citator; then search a case-law database combining terms such as 'learned intermediary,' 'failure to warn,' and 'medical device.' (correct answer)
Read the unpublished federal district court decision in DaVinci and treat it as persuasive authority because it applies Ruiz; then update the state products-liability statute through its pocket part.
Use the citator report only for Ruiz; because the report shows no direct history, conclude that Ruiz remains controlling and no additional case-law research is needed.
Search law review articles for citations to Ruiz; read each article's table of authorities; if the articles mention Tran or Kramer, cite them for the proposition that Ruiz is still good law.

Explanation: When you see a research question, your job is to choose the strategy most likely to produce current, on-point authority—not just to confirm that your starting case is still good law. Citator reports are snapshots; they flag how later courts have treated your case, but you must read those cases and update them too. Here, the correct move is to read Tran and Kramer in full because they are state-court decisions directly addressing Ruiz. Tran distinguishes Ruiz on the key issue—whether the failure to warn ran to the physician rather than the patient—and Kramer criticizes Ruiz's reasoning while applying it. Both are highly relevant to the learned-intermediary exception. Running them through an online citator will reveal subsequent cases that relied on them, and then a targeted database search using terms like "learned intermediary," "failure to warn," and "medical device" will capture additional authority beyond the original report. The other choices miss the mark. Reading the unpublished federal district court decision in DaVinci and treating it as persuasive may be reasonable, but an unpublished federal decision is weaker than state appellate authority, and checking only the statute's pocket part ignores case-law updates. Using the citator report only for Ruiz and concluding no further research is needed ignores the citing references, which are precisely the leads you need. Finally, searching law review articles can provide background, but articles are secondary authority and cannot substitute for reading primary cases; mentioning Tran or Kramer in an article does not make them reliable proof of Ruiz's current validity. Remember: a citator is a starting point, not the destination. Always follow the citing references, especially those that distinguish or criticize your case.

Question 6

An associate is preparing a brief on whether a digital asset is a 'security' under state securities law. She has found a 2019 state supreme court case from another jurisdiction, an ALR annotation directly on point published in 2016 with a later cumulative supplement, and the state's annotated code section on securities. The citator for the 2019 case shows no subsequent history and three out-of-state citing references.

Which source is most likely to provide a comprehensive, updated collection of cases on this issue from multiple jurisdictions?

The ALR annotation, including its cumulative supplement, because it collects and analyzes cases on the exact issue and the supplement updates the collection. (correct answer)
The citator report for the 2019 case, because every on-point later decision will cite the 2019 case.
The state annotated securities code, because its notes of decisions collect cases from all jurisdictions.
A full-text web search for 'digital asset security state law,' using only results from state bar association articles.

Explanation: When you're asked which source gives a comprehensive, updated multi-jurisdiction case collection, think about the hierarchy of legal research tools. A treatise or annotation is designed to synthesize cases across jurisdictions; a citator and an annotated code serve narrower, jurisdiction-specific functions. Here, the ALR annotation, including its cumulative supplement, is the best choice. ALR annotations are secondary sources that collect and analyze cases on a specific legal issue from many jurisdictions, and the cumulative supplement ensures the discussion stays current. That matches the question's need: comprehensive and updated. The citator report for the 2019 case is not equally reliable because it depends on later courts actually citing that case; relevant cases may distinguish or avoid it, and a citator is a case-tracking tool, not a topical collection. The state annotated securities code is useful, but its notes of decisions primarily collect cases interpreting that state's statute, not cases from all jurisdictions. Finally, a full-text web search limited to state bar association articles is far too narrow and unsystematic—it may miss cases and lacks editorial rigor. Remember the pattern: when a research question asks for a broad, current survey of case law across jurisdictions, reach for a secondary source like ALR. For updating one case's validity, use a citator; for state-specific interpretations, use an annotated code.

Question 7

Robin is researching what constitutes 'material harm' under Section 4 of the federal Consumer Data Breach Notification Act. She has a 2019 First Circuit decision, In re Portal Data, interpreting that phrase. The citator for Portal Data lists 14 citing references, all from the First Circuit or secondary sources. She also has access to the United States Code Annotated's notes of decisions for Section 4, a federal practice treatise, and an administrative decisions database.

Which source is the most efficient way to find decisions from other circuits interpreting the same statutory phrase?

Use the citator for Portal Data, because cases citing it will necessarily address the same statutory phrase.
Search the United States Code Annotated notes of decisions under Section 4 for 'material harm' and review the cases collected there from other circuits. (correct answer)
Run a full-text search in the administrative decisions database for 'material harm' and 'Consumer Data Breach Notification Act.'
Read the federal practice treatise's chapter on data breach cases and cite the treatise's statement of the rule as controlling authority.

Explanation: When you need cases from multiple circuits interpreting a specific statutory phrase, your anchor should be the statute itself. An annotated code like the United States Code Annotated is a research shortcut: its "notes of decisions" organize cases by statutory provision and by topic, so searching under Section 4 for "material harm" will surface decisions from any circuit that interpreted that language. That makes it the most efficient route. The citator for In re Portal Data is a trap: the passage tells you all 14 citing references are from the First Circuit or secondary sources, so it cannot expose you to other circuits' interpretations. A full-text search of an administrative decisions database is also off-target because administrative decisions are agency adjudications, not federal court interpretations of the statute, and they may not use the exact phrase you need. The federal practice treatise is useful background, but a treatise is persuasive commentary, not controlling authority—you cannot cite it as binding law. Remember the pattern: when a question asks how to find judicial interpretations of a statute, go to the annotated statute first. Look for the "notes of decisions" or "case annotations" and narrow by the operative phrase. That method is faster and more authoritative than chasing citators or secondary sources.

Question 8

An associate needs to determine what Congress intended by the phrase 'reasonable accommodation' in Section 7 of the 2020 Consumer Online Safety Act. The annotated code's historical and statutory notes identify the act as Pub. L. No. 116-100, § 7, 134 Stat. 500, and list committee report numbers. The associate also has cases interpreting the phrase, law review articles about its legislative history, and access to Congress.gov and a commercial legislative history database.

Which research step would best provide authoritative evidence of congressional intent?

Summarize the law review articles' discussion of the floor debates and cite them as evidence of legislative intent.
Search the Code of Federal Regulations for the agency's definition of 'reasonable accommodation' and use it as evidence of congressional intent.
Shepardize the cases interpreting Section 7 and rely on the court opinions' descriptions of the legislative history.
Retrieve the committee reports and floor debates identified in the historical notes from Congress.gov or a legislative history database, and read the relevant passages. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a question asks for authoritative evidence of congressional intent, your first instinct should be to distinguish primary sources from secondary commentary. Legislative history itself—committee reports, floor debates, bill versions—is primary, while articles, treatises, and even court descriptions are secondary interpretations. Here, the best step is to retrieve the committee reports and floor debates identified in the historical notes from Congress.gov or a commercial legislative history database and read the relevant passages. Committee reports are traditionally the most authoritative evidence of congressional intent, and floor debates can reveal purpose and compromise. Going to the primary documents lets you evaluate the actual words Congress considered, rather than relying on someone else's summary. The wrong answers each reflect a common trap. Summarizing law review articles gives you secondary analysis, not authoritative evidence; scholars can be persuasive, but they are not the source of intent. Searching the Code of Federal Regulations for an agency definition is also off-target because agency regulations interpret statutes after enactment, not congressional intent at the time of drafting. Likewise, Shepardizing cases and relying on court opinions' descriptions of legislative history is useful for case validity, but judges are interpreting the history secondhand—not providing the underlying congressional record itself. Study tip: when you see "authoritative evidence of legislative intent," think primary legislative history first, especially committee reports. Secondary sources can lead you to the primary sources, but only the primary sources prove intent.

Question 9

An associate is verifying the current text of 12 C.F.R. § 270.31 for a client memorandum. The firm's print edition of 12 C.F.R. is current through January 1, 2024, with no pocket part. The associate also has the agency's website page labeled 'Rules as Published,' a commercial database copy of the regulation labeled 'current through June 1, 2024,' the monthly List of CFR Sections Affected for May 2024, and the daily Federal Register for the last two weeks.

Which step should the associate take first to determine whether the print text has been amended?

Compare the agency's 'Rules as Published' page with the commercial database copy and, if the texts are identical, rely on the commercial database copy as current.
Use the commercial database copy because its June 1, 2024 currency date is later than the print volume's January 1, 2024 currency date.
Review the List of CFR Sections Affected and recent daily Federal Register issues for entries mentioning 12 C.F.R. Part 270 or § 270.31, then retrieve any final rule that amends the section. (correct answer)
Search the Federal Register for notices of proposed rulemaking mentioning § 270.31, because the existence of a proposed amendment shows the current text is not reliable.

Explanation: When you need to verify whether a print version of a federal regulation is still current, you are testing your knowledge of the federal regulatory updating process. The critical habit to develop is to check the primary updating tools—the List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) and the Federal Register—rather than assuming that a later "currency date" or a commercial copy automatically reflects the official text. Here, the print volume is current through January 1, 2024, so your job is to find any final amendments after that date. The correct first step is to review the monthly LSA and the recent daily Federal Register issues for entries mentioning 12 C.F.R. Part 270 or § 270.31, and then retrieve any final rule that amends the section. This is the authoritative, reliable path because the LSA and Federal Register are official trackers of regulatory changes. The wrong choices each contain a trap. Comparing the agency's "Rules as Published" page with the commercial database copy tells you only that two secondary or unofficial versions agree, not that either is current, and "Rules as Published" may not be the codified regulation. Relying on the commercial database solely because its June 1, 2024 date is later is also flawed: a later copyright or currency date does not guarantee completeness or accuracy absent verification against official sources. Searching for notices of proposed rulemaking is misguided because proposed rules have no legal effect and do not amend the current text; only final rules do. Study tip: when updating CFR text, always anchor your process in official sources—LSA and final rules in the Federal Register—before trusting any database's currency label.

Question 10

An associate is writing a brief on a state procedural rule. The latest bound volume of the state reporter includes decisions through March 1, 2024. The state supreme court decided an on-point case on April 10, 2024. The court's website posts slip opinions immediately, and the opinion states: 'Not final until time for rehearing expires.' The court also publishes advance sheets weekly, and the bound volume will not be published until next year.

Before citing the April 10 decision, what should the associate do?

Cite the slip opinion as posted because it is the most current available version and the court website is authoritative.
Cite the advance sheet instead of the slip opinion because the advance sheet is an official reporter.
Wait until the decision appears in a bound volume, because slip opinions and advance sheets are not citable.
Check whether a petition for rehearing was filed or denied and whether a correction or superseding opinion has been issued, then cite the final version under local rules. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a citation question involving a recently decided case, think about finality and local rules — not just where the opinion was printed. The April 10 decision is a slip opinion, and its own caption warns that it is "Not final until time for rehearing expires." That means the opinion could still change, be withdrawn, or be replaced by a superseding opinion before it becomes final. So the correct approach is to check whether a petition for rehearing was filed or denied, whether any correction or superseding opinion has been issued, and then cite the final version under the court's local rules. This confirms you are not citing language the court later changed. The choice to cite the slip opinion simply because it is current and on the court website is tempting, but "most current" does not mean "final," and website publication alone does not notify you of later rehearing or corrections. The choice to cite the advance sheet instead is also flawed: advance sheets may not be published yet, and being an "official reporter" does not make the decision final if rehearing is still pending. The choice to wait for the bound volume is too extreme — courts generally allow citation to slip opinions or advance sheets when no bound volume exists, and waiting could make your brief outdated or needlessly incomplete. Remember: before citing any recent case, always verify its procedural status and citation form under local rules. Treat "not final" as a red flag requiring further research.

Question 11

A summer associate found a law review article and a 2018 treatise section stating the majority rule for trade-secret misappropriation. Before including the treatise's rule in a client memo, the associate checks the online database and sees the treatise's front matter says 'No pocket part; supplemented by online releases.' The publisher's update history page says the relevant chapter was last revised in 2018. The associate has not found later cases citing the treatise section itself.

Which step is the most reliable way to determine whether the treatise's statement is still accurate?

Rely on the treatise because it is a well-known secondary source and the rule is described as the majority rule.
Cite the law review article instead because law review articles are updated more frequently than treatises.
Use a citator to find later cases discussing the authorities on which the treatise relies. (correct answer)
Search a news database for 'trade secret majority rule' and use a recent article to confirm the treatise position.

Explanation: When you need to verify whether a secondary source's statement of a legal rule is still good law, the central issue is currency through authority, not the source's reputation. Treatises and law review articles are persuasive only to the extent their underlying case law remains valid. The most reliable move is to run a citator—such as KeyCite or Shepard's—on the cases the treatise relies on. That tells you whether those authorities have been overruled, criticized, or distinguished. If the citing cases are still healthy, the treatise's majority-rule statement is likely accurate; if the underlying authorities have eroded, the statement is suspect. The tempting choice to "rely on the treatise because it is a well-known secondary source" confuses prestige with validation. A respected treatise can still be outdated, especially when its own front matter says there is no pocket part and the chapter was last revised years ago. Similarly, "cite the law review article instead because articles are updated more frequently" is a false comparison—many articles are not updated at all, and citing an article does not verify the underlying rule's current status. Finally, "search a news database for 'trade secret majority rule'" may surface journalism, but news articles are not authoritative statements of law and rarely reflect the nuanced subsequent treatment of cases. Your takeaway: when updating a legal rule, citating the primary authorities is the gold standard. Always ask, "What primary law supports this statement, and has anything happened to it since?"

Question 12

Talia relies on a 2005 state supreme court case holding that emotional distress damages are unavailable for breach of an employment contract. A 2023 state statute permits emotional distress damages when the breach involves discriminatory discharge, effective January 1, 2024. The citator report for the 2005 case shows no negative treatment and one post-2023 citing reference, a secondary source. The citator report for the 2023 statute lists ten 2024 cases interpreting the statute.

What should Talia do before advising a client on a 2025 discriminatory-discharge claim?

Use the citator report for the 2023 statute and read the ten 2024 cases to see whether courts treat the statute as superseding the old common-law rule for this category of claim. (correct answer)
Use the citator report for the 2005 case and rely on it because no court has overruled it.
Advise that the 2023 statute automatically displaces the 2005 case because it is newer and specifically addresses discriminatory discharge.
Advise that the 2005 case still governs because statutes changing the common law are strictly construed and are presumed not to apply to existing causes of action.

Explanation: When you see a question about conflicting case law and a newer statute, the issue is legal research and updating the law: a citator tells you whether a case is still good law, but it cannot by itself tell you whether a statute has displaced the common-law rule. Here, the 2005 case held that emotional distress damages are unavailable for employment-contract breach, and the 2023 statute permits them for discriminatory discharge. Because the claim is in 2025, the statute's effective date is satisfied, but whether the statute supersedes the old rule for this category is a question of statutory interpretation. That is why you should use the citator report for the 2023 statute and read the ten 2024 cases interpreting it; those cases will reveal whether courts treat the statute as abrogating the old common-law rule. The option to use the 2005 citator and rely on it because no court has overruled it is tempting but incomplete: a legislature can supersede a common-law rule without a court ever overruling the old case. Advising that the statute automatically displaces the 2005 case is too conclusory; you must verify how courts apply it. And advising that the 2005 case still governs because statutes changing the common law are strictly construed and presumed not to apply to existing causes of action misstates the presumption: statutes generally apply prospectively, and this is a 2025 claim, so retroactivity is not the barrier. Your study tip: when a statute postdates a case, always citate the statute and read its interpreting cases before relying on the old case's "no negative treatment" status.