Lawyering Skills I
Professor David E. Sorkin
Citation Guide
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are many different sets of citation rules. Legal periodicals, including law reviews, often have their own internal citation rules. Publishers of case reporters and other legal materials typically have their own citation guidelines. Some courts have special citation rules for appellate briefs and court opinions. The citation rules set forth in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (16th ed. 1996) are probably used more widely than any other system, and are the rules you will be expected to follow in Lawyering Skills I.
The Bluebook has three main sections:
- general rules of citation and style (pp. 21-53);
- citation rules for specific types of authorities (cases, statutes, etc.) (pp. 55-163); and
- tables of abbreviations and citation forms for specific jurisdictions (pp. 165-325).
These three additional features can help you to use The Bluebook efficiently:
- the index at the back of the book;
- the "quick reference" citation form examples on the inside back cover; and
- the summarized table of contents on the back cover.
This Citation Guide isn't intended to be a substitute for The Bluebook; you'll need to consult The Bluebook frequently as you learn its citation rules, and you'll probably continue to use it as a reference afterwards. But this Guide should help you learn some of the tricker aspects of The Bluebook, including those that will be most important in Lawyering Skills I.
One thing to keep in mind is that The Bluebook was designed for law reviews, not for briefs or legal memoranda. The typefaces in most of the examples in the book are those that law reviews use, which are different from those used in typed legal memoranda. To see the difference, compare the examples on the inside front cover of The Bluebook with those on the inside back cover. In the memoranda that you write for this class, the only typefaces that you should use are ordinary type and underlined type.
The Bluebook provides examples of typical legal citations in section I.4 (pp. 5-9). The inside back cover of The Bluebook is a better source of examples, since it uses the typefaces that you will use for the legal memoranda that you write for Lawyering Skills I.
Bluebook Rule 10 (pp. 55-71) explains the components of a case citation. In general, a complete citation to a case usually includes the following items:
- the name of the case (Rule 10.2, pp. 56-61, and Table T.6, pp. 285-86);
- the volume number, reporter abbreviation, and initial page number (Rule 10.3, pp. 61-63, and Table T.1, pp. 165-228);
- the specific page number being cited, sometimes called the "jump" or "pinpoint" cite;
- a parenthetical containing an abbreviation for the court and jurisdiction, if necessary (Rule 10.4, pp. 63-64, and Table T.1, pp. 165-228), and the year of the decision (Rule 10.5, pp. 64-65).
After a case has already been cited to once, a short form citation is used thereafter instead of the full citation.
Rule 12 of The Bluebook (pp. 73-87) provides the citation rules for statutes. Citations to statutes are generally shorter than case citations, but they can be more difficult because the format varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A citation to a federal statute, for example, looks like this:
22 U.S.C. § 2567 (1996).A citation to an California state statute looks like this:
Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (West 1982).A citation to an Illinois state statute looks like this:720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/19-1 (West 1996).You can consult Table T.1 of The Bluebook (pp. 165-
228) to find the correct format for a particular jurisdiction.
Citation Sentences and Clauses
Citations can appear either within a textual sentence or in a citation clause or sentence.
The Supreme Court of Montana held in State v. Caryl, 543 P.2d 389 (Mont. 1975), that the burden of proving an insanity defense rests with the defendant.
In International Research & Development Corp. v. American Manufacturers Ass'n, 386 U.S. 120 (1967), the Supreme Court adopted a three-
part test for personal jurisdiction over an unincorporated association.
- Within a textual sentence, abbreviate "Corp." and "Ass'n" per Rule 10.2.1(h)
(p. 60).
The burden of proving an insanity defense rests with the defendant. State v. Caryl, 543 P.2d 389 (Mont. 1975).
Personal jurisdiction over an unincorporated association depends on three factors. International Research & Dev. Corp. v. American Mfrs. Ass'n, 386 U.S. 120 (1967).
- Abbreviate "Dev." and "Mfrs." per Rule 10.2.2
(p. 60) and Table T.6 (pp. 285-86). Do not abbreviate the first word of a party'sname -- see Rule 10.2.1(c)(p. 58). When the cited authority supports only part of a sentence, use a citation clause, set off by commas, rather than a citation sentence.
The defendant has the burden of proving both the insanity defense, State v. Caryl, 543 P.2d 389 (Mont. 1975), and self-defense, State v. Blackburn, 591 P.2d 1007 (Mont. 1978).
Personal jurisdiction over an unincorporated association depends on three factors, International Research & Dev. Corp. v. American Mfrs. Ass'n, 386 U.S. 120 (1967), but the threshold test is whether the association has any members who reside in the jurisdiction, IBM Corp. v. American Auto. Ass'n, 412 U.S. 378 (1971).
Explanatory parentheticals are used to add information that describes a cited authority. Explanatory parentheticals ordinarily begin with a present participle. (See Bluebook Rule 1.5.)
AFL-CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (finding executive authority to set wage and price standards for government contractors).
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 486, 488 (1960) (describing "strict scrutiny" test).
Salinas v. Chicago Park Dist., 545 N.E.2d 187, 189 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (citing Alop v. Edgewood Valley Community Ass'n, 507 N.E.2d 19 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)).
State v. Rawland, 199 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1972) (factfinder must "take account of the entire man and his mind as a whole").
United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 1983) ("Congress did not intend that this statute be so draconian.").
- Authorities introduced by the signals see also, cf., compare ... with, but cf., and see generally (see Signals) should normally be explained parenthetically.
For purposes of a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, all facts well pleaded must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A complaint is properly dismissed only where it appears that no set of facts can be proved which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
Harrell v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 545 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (citations omitted).
"[W]here there is a question of breach of a fiduciary duty of
a managing partner, all doubts will be resolved against
him
In Independent Voters v. Commerce Commission, the Appellate
Court of Illinois held that "appeals following a final
determination
"[I]t is well-settled that 'pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.'" Labovitz v. Dolan, 545 N.E.2d 304, 309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (quoting Mlade v. Finley, 445 N.E.2d 1240, 1243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)).
Or, you can also cite to the original source, and indicate that it has been quoted elsewhere:Mlade v. Finley, 445 N.E.2d 1240, 1243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983), quoted in Labovitz v. Dolan, 545 N.E.2d 304, 309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989).
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 51, 58 (1931)
Winters v. Greeley, 545 N.E.2d 422, 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (dictum).
Include the entire subsequent history in a full citation to a case. Include prior history only if it is relevant. (See Bluebook Rule 10.7, pp. 66-68.)
If the case is less than two years old and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition for certiorari, indicate that fact as follows:
United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117
S. Ct. 2491 (1997).Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118
S. Ct. 2341 (1998).
- Note that if certiorari was denied in the same year that the case was decided, the year is included only once, as in the Route example above. This rule applies to other types of subsequent history as well.
Also indicate other subsequent history of the case in the same or higher courts:
Stanford v. Kuwait Airways Corp., 892 F. Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), rev'd, 89 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1996).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis.), rev'd, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Fact Concerts, Inc. v. City of Newport, 626 F.2d 1060 (1st Cir. 1980) (first amendment protects right to produce a jazz concert, and city attempting to bar such a program must show prevailing public welfare interest), rev'd on other grounds, 453 U.S. 247 (1981).
- Note the placement of the explanatory parenthetical in the above
example -- immediately after the citation to the case that it explains, and before the subsequent history.For a list of case history abbreviations, see Table T.9
(p. 272). Note that some of the abbreviations are followed by a comma and others are not.
The first time you cite to a particular case or other authority, you must provide a full citation. In subsequent citations to the same authority, you should normally use a short form. You should use a short form when:
- it will be clear to the reader from the short form what is being referenced;
- the earlier full citation falls in the same general discussion; and
- the reader will have little trouble locating the full citation quickly.
Id. is used to refer to the immediately preceding authority. If the page number differs, use id. at [page number]. If you are referring to the same page, use just id.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court held that injury to reputation is required for an award of compensatory damages. 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974). Punitive damages are available where actual malice can be shown. Id. at 347.
Some courts find strict liability inappropriate in cases involving an omission to act. Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law 207 (2d ed. 1986). Normally, however, strict liability is unlikely to attach based upon a statutory duty of which the actor was unaware. Id. at 208.
- If the previous citation includes more than one authority, you can't use id., because it would be ambiguous to the reader which authority you meant to refer to. Also, id. cannot refer to an authority that is contained in parentheses.
Full citation:
State v. Aulick, 605 P.2d 465 (Ariz. 1979).
or
State v. Aulick, 605 P.2d 465, 467 (Ariz. 1979).Short forms:
Aulick, 605 P.2d at 471.
or
605 P.2d at 471.
- Don't omit the case name entirely unless it will be obvious to the reader which case you are referring to. When in doubt, include at least an abbreviated form of the case name. (You can usually use either party's name for the short form, but try to pick the one that best identifies the case. For a criminal case, for example, use the defendant's name rather than "State" or "People.")
You may notice citations in cases and other materials that don't seem to comply with Bluebook rules. Often this occurs because courts and legal publishers use different sets of citation rules. Even law reviews that claim to follow The Bluebook make mistakes from time to time. Be
careful -- you can't rely on citations in published materials for examples of correct Bluebook forms.Here are two common mistakes that students make in short form case citations: omitting the volume number and reporter abbreviation, and using "supra."
NEVER USE THIS FORM TO CITE TO A CASE:
Aulick at 471.DON'T USE supra IN CASE CITATIONS.
Short form citations for statutes can be complicated, but only because the full citation form for statutes varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often the appropriate short form will be extremely
brief -- for example, "§ 1701." See Rule 12.9 in The Bluebook (pp. 86-87) for a discussion of short form citations for statutes.
Short forms for books and law review articles
Full citation (book):
Laurie G. Kirszner & Stephen R. Mandell, The Holt Handbook 548 (3d ed. 1992).Short form:
Kirszner & Mandell, supra, at 547.
Full citation (law review article):
David Millon, Redefining Corporate Law, 24 Ind. L. Rev. 223, 263 n.146 (1991).Short form:
Millon, supra, at 271-73.
Signals are discussed near the beginning of The Bluebook (Rules 1.2 and 1.3, pp. 22-24), but they can be very confusing. A signal introduces a citation to legal authority. It tells the reader how the authority supports your statement.
- Since most of the authorities cited in an objective legal memorandum should provide direct support for the propositions for which they are cited, signals may not even be necessary in such a memorandum.
There are four types of signals:
Supporting signals [no signal]
accord
see
see also
cf.Comparison signal compare ... with Contradictory signals but see
but cf.Background signal see generally Signals should appear in the order that they are listed in the table above. E.g. may be combined with another signal to indicate that you are merely giving represenatative examples, as in See, e.g.
, .... All signals of a single type (supporting, comparison, etc.) that you use should appear within a single citation sentence. For an example, see page 24 of The Bluebook.
Use a supporting signal when the authority supports the proposition you have stated.
[no signal]
There are only two instances in which The Bluebook permits you to cite an authority without a signal:
- When you are giving a citation for a direct quotation.
"[S]egregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of
race . . . deprive[s] the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities." Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).- When you refer to an authority within a sentence.
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in public schools as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The 15th and earlier editions of The Bluebook provided for a third instance in which no signal was to be used: when the authority states the same
proposition -- in other words, when you have merely paraphrased. Many people are continuing to follow this rule despite the change introduced in the 16th edition.
accord
Accord is not used very often. If you use a direct quotation and give its source without a signal (see above) then want to list other authorities that also state the same proposition but do so in different words, introduce them with accord.
see
Use see when the authority supports the proposition, but doesn't state it
explicitly -- for example, when a proposition can be inferred from the authority.The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees children equal educational opportunities. See Brown, 347 U.S. at 493, 495.
see also
If you cite to an authority without using a signal, you can add supporting authorities to the citation by introducing them with see also.
Racial segregation in public schools deprives minority children of equal educational opportunities. Brown, 347 U.S. at 493; see also Swann, 402 U.S. at 11.
cf.
Cf. means "compare." Use it with authorities that support your proposition by analogy or demonstrate a related point. Include an explanatory parenthetical.
Racial segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954); cf. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (holding that segregation in District of Columbia schools violates Fifth Amendment).
Use the comparison signal compare ... with to suggest that the reader can compare two or more authorities with one another to understand the proposition you have stated. Include explanatory parentheticals.
Use contradictory signals to introduce citations to authorities that disprove or oppose your proposition. The first contradictory signal in a sentence begins with "But"; if you use both but see and but cf. in the same citation sentence, omit the second but. The contradictory signals are analogous to the supporting signals: Use but see for an authority that states or supports a contrary proposition, and but cf. if it supports a contrary proposition merely by analogy.
- In an objective legal memorandum, it's usually advisable to discuss contradictory authorities, rather then just citing to them with a contradictory signal. For this reason, contradictory signals are rather unusual, except in scholarly writing.
The background signal see generally introduces authorities (often secondary authorities such as law review articles) that present background material without necessarily proving or opposing the proposition. Like the contradictory signals, it is used more often in scholarly legal writing than in memoranda and briefs.
| Copyright © 1992-1999 David E. Sorkin | 1999/01/14 |