bluebook question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

bluebook question

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:28 am

Is it possible to string cite a line of cases all holding the same hing and use one paranthetical to describe them all? for example

Jones, 444 f2d 333; Carter, 555 f3d 444; Sheen, 666 f2d 777 (alll holding 7 gram rocks are winning).

I think I have seen this done but I cant find an answer in the blue book.
Thanks

User avatar
Cavalier
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: bluebook question

Postby Cavalier » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:32 am

For cases holding that 7 gram rocks are winning, see Jones, 444 f2d 333; Carter, 555 f3d 444; Sheen, 666 f2d 777.

See Jones, 444 f2d 333 (holding that 7 gram rocks are winning); Carter, 555 f3d 444 (same); Sheen, 666 f2d 777 (same).

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: bluebook question

Postby 03121202698008 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:35 am

pleasetryagain wrote:Is it possible to string cite a line of cases all holding the same hing and use one paranthetical to describe them all? for example

Jones, 444 f2d 333; Carter, 555 f3d 444; Sheen, 666 f2d 777 (alll holding ).

I think I have seen this done but I cant find an answer in the blue book.
Thanks


In Jones, the court held 7 gram rocks are winning. 444 f2d 333; see also Carter, 555 f3d 444; Sheen, 666 f2d 777.

User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

Re: bluebook question

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:37 am

ahh.. both good suggestions.. thanks.

User avatar
Cavalier
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: bluebook question

Postby Cavalier » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:40 am

Bluebook Image

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: bluebook question

Postby 03121202698008 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:42 am

There'd have to be a very good reason for citing three cases for the same proposition though. Can't say I've ever encountered where one didn't slightly modify or explain the holding of a previous one. And therefore: first holding. cite. further explanation. second cite.

Or: first holding. cite; see also second cite (parenthetical with good quote backing me up).

User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

Re: bluebook question

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:47 am

blowhard wrote:There'd have to be a very good reason for citing three cases for the same proposition though. Can't say I've ever encountered where one didn't slightly modify or explain the holding of a previous one. And therefore: first holding. cite. further explanation. second cite.

Or: first holding. cite; see also second cite (parenthetical with good quote backing me up).


the idea is to demonstrate the weight of authority behind my position. a See, e.g. jsut doesnt cut it

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: bluebook question

Postby 03121202698008 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:50 am

pleasetryagain wrote:
blowhard wrote:There'd have to be a very good reason for citing three cases for the same proposition though. Can't say I've ever encountered where one didn't slightly modify or explain the holding of a previous one. And therefore: first holding. cite. further explanation. second cite.

Or: first holding. cite; see also second cite (parenthetical with good quote backing me up).


the idea is to demonstrate the weight of authority behind my position. a See, e.g. jsut doesnt cut it


Eh, in general I think people feel the need to do this too much. That's the very point of e.g. If 3 cases are holding the exact same thing, it's probably not in dispute (e.g. the requirements to become a public figure for defamation). Otherwise, a parenthetical quote from one or to others makes your proposition much much stronger because you can show how other courts, with different facts, came to the same conclusion.

User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

Re: bluebook question

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:55 am

blowhard wrote:
pleasetryagain wrote:
blowhard wrote:There'd have to be a very good reason for citing three cases for the same proposition though. Can't say I've ever encountered where one didn't slightly modify or explain the holding of a previous one. And therefore: first holding. cite. further explanation. second cite.

Or: first holding. cite; see also second cite (parenthetical with good quote backing me up).


the idea is to demonstrate the weight of authority behind my position. a See, e.g. jsut doesnt cut it


Eh, in general I think people feel the need to do this too much. That's the very point of e.g. If 3 cases are holding the exact same thing, it's probably not in dispute (e.g. the requirements to become a public figure for defamation). Otherwise, a parenthetical quote from one or to others makes your proposition much much stronger because you can show how other courts, with different facts, came to the same conclusion.


I am just a loley 1L trying to figure this game out. dont put your fancy talk on me!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: santoki, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests