bluebook question Forum
- pleasetryagain
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am
bluebook question
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
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
- Cavalier
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:13 pm
Re: bluebook question
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).
See Jones, 444 f2d 333 (holding that 7 gram rocks are winning); Carter, 555 f3d 444 (same); Sheen, 666 f2d 777 (same).
-
- Posts: 2992
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Re: bluebook question
In Jones, the court held 7 gram rocks are winning. 444 f2d 333; see also Carter, 555 f3d 444; Sheen, 666 f2d 777.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
- pleasetryagain
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am
Re: bluebook question
ahh.. both good suggestions.. thanks.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 2992
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Re: bluebook question
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).
Or: first holding. cite; see also second cite (parenthetical with good quote backing me up).
- pleasetryagain
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am
Re: bluebook question
the idea is to demonstrate the weight of authority behind my position. a See, e.g. jsut doesnt cut itblowhard 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).
-
- Posts: 2992
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Re: bluebook question
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.pleasetryagain wrote:the idea is to demonstrate the weight of authority behind my position. a See, e.g. jsut doesnt cut itblowhard 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).
- pleasetryagain
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am
Re: bluebook question
I am just a loley 1L trying to figure this game out. dont put your fancy talk on me!blowhard wrote: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.pleasetryagain wrote:the idea is to demonstrate the weight of authority behind my position. a See, e.g. jsut doesnt cut itblowhard 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).