Bluebook question: omit "jr." in a name? Forum

[engineer]

According to B5.1.1(ii), you're supposed to omit initials and include only the surname. In one of the cases to which I'm citing, the appellant is "A.B.C., Jr., a child, v. State of Lalalalalalala" -- I'm abbreviating that to "A.B.C. v. State," since the state is clear from the jurisdiction info. I'm considering "Jr." to be an "initial" as far as the bluebook is concerned. Is this correct?

[ggocat]

Although BB does not appear to address the issue, I would omit it. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends omitting such abbreviations (jr., sr., II, III, etc.) when only the surname is used in the text. Because we typically use only the surname in case names, I think we would typically not include "jr." in the case name. I think it would be natural to omit "jr." with an abbreviated child's name in the case name.

[mikeytwoshoes]

According to B5.1.1(ii), you're supposed to omit initials and include only the surname. In one of the cases to which I'm citing, the appellant is "A.B.C., Jr., a child, v. State of Lalalalalalala" -- I'm abbreviating that to "A.B.C. v. State," since the state is clear from the jurisdiction info. I'm considering "Jr." to be an "initial" as far as the bluebook is concerned. Is this correct?

I think "Jr." is a given name following a surname. See rule 10.2.1(g).

[Renzo]

According to B5.1.1(ii), you're supposed to omit initials and include only the surname. In one of the cases to which I'm citing, the appellant is "A.B.C., Jr., a child, v. State of Lalalalalalala" -- I'm abbreviating that to "A.B.C. v. State," since the state is clear from the jurisdiction info. I'm considering "Jr." to be an "initial" as far as the bluebook is concerned. Is this correct?

I think "Jr." is a given name following a surname. See rule 10.2.1(g).

There aren't really given names that follow surnames in English/western European names. Omit the Jr.

[mikeytwoshoes]

According to B5.1.1(ii), you're supposed to omit initials and include only the surname. In one of the cases to which I'm citing, the appellant is "A.B.C., Jr., a child, v. State of Lalalalalalala" -- I'm abbreviating that to "A.B.C. v. State," since the state is clear from the jurisdiction info. I'm considering "Jr." to be an "initial" as far as the bluebook is concerned. Is this correct?

I think "Jr." is a given name following a surname. See rule 10.2.1(g).

There aren't really given names that follow surnames in English/western European names. Omit the Jr.

It's a part of one's given name (Joe Jr., Dan Jr.). If you omit it, the case name is possibly imprecise and the reader could mistake an unrelated case for the one you want to cite.

[Renzo]

According to B5.1.1(ii), you're supposed to omit initials and include only the surname. In one of the cases to which I'm citing, the appellant is "A.B.C., Jr., a child, v. State of Lalalalalalala" -- I'm abbreviating that to "A.B.C. v. State," since the state is clear from the jurisdiction info. I'm considering "Jr." to be an "initial" as far as the bluebook is concerned. Is this correct?

I think "Jr." is a given name following a surname. See rule 10.2.1(g).

There aren't really given names that follow surnames in English/western European names. Omit the Jr.

It's a part of one's given name (Joe Jr., Dan Jr.). If you omit it, the case name is possibly imprecise and the reader could mistake an unrelated case for the one you want to cite.

If this were a real concern we wouldn't omit first names, or leave off all party names other than the first listed. It's why we have numerical reporter citations. After all, how many cases do you think there are called "United States v. City of New York?" A million?

[mikeytwoshoes]

I think "Jr." is a given name following a surname. See rule 10.2.1(g).

There aren't really given names that follow surnames in English/western European names. Omit the Jr.

It's a part of one's given name (Joe Jr., Dan Jr.). If you omit it, the case name is possibly imprecise and the reader could mistake an unrelated case for the one you want to cite.

If this were a real concern we wouldn't omit first names, or leave off all party names other than the first listed. It's why we have numerical reporter citations. After all, how many cases do you think there are called "United States v. City of New York?" A million?

I don't even know why we're arguing this but I think the bolded is false. We both know that Bluebook is anal x 10. The editors are looking for both precision and brevity in the rules. For fuck's sake, you get knocked down a letter grade for failing to italicize a period (.). You can't apply bluebook rules by common sense! You have to go by the book itself.