Thus , the law review concluded , the Supreme Court established an unnecessary precedent .
However , the case note argued that a narrower reading of the second count was more appropriate , because the statute explicitly requires the name age and residence , and not anything else .
The law review concluded , the Supreme Court established an unnecessary precedent .
However , the case note argued that a narrower reading of the second count was more appropriate , because the statute explicitly requires the name age and residence , and not anything else .