citing to the same case in string cite? Forum

[goosey]

we have only one binding case for our brief..and in that case, the court repeatedly asserts the point that I am trying to make.

I say that the court had repeatedly said xyz and would like my citation to reflect it (by listing all the places where they made such a statement) to add persuasive power...can you even do this? if so, how?

[goosey]

we have only one binding case for our brief..and in that case, the court repeatedly asserts the point that I am trying to make.

I say that the court had repeatedly said xyz and would like my citation to reflect it (by listing all the places where they made such a statement) to add persuasive power...can you even do this? if so, how?

Multiple pin cites with a parenthetical.

so for example [this is made up] 562 U.S. 132, 146, 147, 148?
and do you mean the parenthetical would go at the end of the pin cites? I said in the main text that the court repeatedly said it...what should be said in the parenthetical? Also, do I need a Cf. before the site if I am using a parenthetical?

[dougroberts]

Cf. is only for when you want the reader to compare SOURCE 1 with SOURCE 2:

Sentence text here. Jones v. Smith, 123 U.S. 123 (2002) (holding X); cf. State v. Mike, 143 U.S. 156 (2001) (holding that X is only applicable if Z).

"Cf." literally means "compare." Thus, cf. can be used with or without parentheticals, just when you want reader to look at two sources to compare. However, it is probably advisable to have some parenthetical information so the reader quickly knows why you are comparing SOURCE 1 with SOURCE 2.

[dougroberts]

You'd still hyphenate consecutive pages. So, it'd be like: 214, 217, 220-22 (1998) (reiterating X on each page). Or something along those lines.

Yes; I think this is right.
So, it would look like this:

Sentence text here. Jones v. Smith, 123 U.S. 123, 392, 394, 401-403 (2003) (reiterating X).
[of course, may be appropriate to substitute with "Id. at pg#'s."]

Though I don't think you would need to say "on each page" within the parenthetical as that would be redundant because the string pinpoint cites would indicate to a reader multiple pages.

[goosey]

ok, thanks so much everyone!!

[vamedic03]

I've been thinking about this since I first saw it posted. I'm going to go against the grain here and say that it's probably not a good idea.

Before people jump all over me for this, let me explain. Generally, a citation will be to either - the holding, the reasoning for the holding, or persuasive dicta. Sometime, accurately capturing the holding or the reasoning may require citation to several pages and that's fine. What I don't agree with is citing to multiple pages because the "court repeatedly asserts the point." If they're repeating the holding, then just cite to the holding. It doesn't help your reader to provide more pincites that are necessary. Efficiency is a good thing and there shouldn't be more citations than are necessary. (nor should there be less than necessary)

[edcrane]

Cf. is only for when you want the reader to compare SOURCE 1 with SOURCE 2:

Sentence text here. Jones v. Smith, 123 U.S. 123 (2002) (holding X); cf. State v. Mike, 143 U.S. 156 (2001) (holding that X is only applicable if Z).

"Cf." literally means "compare." Thus, cf. can be used with or without parentheticals, just when you want reader to look at two sources to compare. However, it is probably advisable to have some parenthetical information so the reader quickly knows why you are comparing SOURCE 1 with SOURCE 2.

Notwithstanding its literal meaning, in bluebook land, Cf. is used to provide support by analogy, not compare two different sources. Thus it may be entirely appropriate to use the Cf. signal even when you only have one source of support. The signal used to make comparisons is "Compare."

[Anonymous Loser]

Why not simply state your proposition in a textual sentence, and then cite to the case generally?


"The majority opinion in Jones states over twenty separate times that the protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to automobiles; there can be no doubt that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in such places. See generally, Jones v. Smith 123 U.S. 456 (2011) (unequivocally extending 4th Amendment to automobiles)."

You'd still hyphenate consecutive pages. So, it'd be like: 214, 217, 220-22 (1998) (reiterating X on each page). Or something along those lines.

The Bluebook is explicit: when a point is repeated throughout a source, use passim rather than citing specific pages. R.3.2(a). I would be wary of deviating from this rule in a LRW memo. Honestly, no one cares how persuasive you are in LRW. You are unlikely to earn points for effective advocacy, but you will definitely lose points for improper Bluebooking. A citation with 6 pincites or whatever is definitely going to draw attention that you probably don't want.

[Anonymous Loser]

Yeah, I suppose the rule does allow for discretion. Still, it's probably best to try and develop a citation that is simple and straightforward.

[ak362]

The Bluebook is explicit: when a point is repeated throughout a source, use passim rather than citing specific pages. R.3.2(a). I would be wary of deviating from this rule in a LRW memo. Honestly, no one cares how persuasive you are in LRW. You are unlikely to earn points for effective advocacy, but you will definitely lose points for improper Bluebooking. A citation with 6 pincites or whatever is definitely going to draw attention that you probably don't want.

For an academic piece, yes. For a practitioner brief, BB Rule B4.1.2 controls, and makes the passim discretionary.

If the material you wish to reference appears on more nonconsecutive pages than is convenient to list in one citation, you may use passim in lieu of a pincite.

Notwithstanding its literal meaning, in bluebook land, Cf. is used to provide support by analogy, not compare two different sources. Thus it may be entirely appropriate to use the Cf. signal even when you only have one source of support. The signal used to make comparisons is "Compare."

+1

OP: If the Court repeatedly hammers away at your point, why don't you try to split it up into multiple propositions and try to spread the pincites evenly? That way, you won't have a citation that looks like this:

See Smith v. Doe, 543 U.S. 168, 169-72, 178-81, 183, 188, 192 (2010) (explaining that strict scrutiny is the standard of review for all hybrid Free Exercise cases).