quick bluebook question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
rawrab
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:28 pm

quick bluebook question

Postby rawrab » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:03 pm

For an assignment for legal writing one of the questions asks us to list relevant cases. My professor wants them to be in correct bluebook citation. When just naming a case in general, should there be a pinpoint cite? For example, should it be Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704, 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). or Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988).

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:10 pm

rawrab wrote:For an assignment for legal writing one of the questions asks us to list relevant cases. My professor wants them to be in correct bluebook citation. When just naming a case in general, should there be a pinpoint cite? For example, should it be Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704, 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). or Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988).



First, underlining is TTT. Italicize that shiz.
Second, the answer to your question is no pincite for citing case generally.
Last edited by Void on Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
The Gentleman
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:25 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby The Gentleman » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:16 pm

Void wrote:
rawrab wrote:For an assignment for legal writing one of the questions asks us to list relevant cases. My professor wants them to be in correct bluebook citation. When just naming a case in general, should there be a pinpoint cite? For example, should it be Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704, 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). or Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988).


First of all, I don't know where you got this "III. App. Ct." thing, but you didn't get it from the bluebook.

Second, underlining is TTT. Italicize that shiz.

Third, the answer to your question is no pincite for citing case generally.


That's pretty much exactly how my LRW teacher wants us cite. Include the court's name along with the year in parentheses and underline the case name. So you're not necessarily doing it wrong.

And I didn't do pincites for a similar assignment. (Although I haven't got it back yet, so I might be wrong about it)

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:20 pm

The Gentleman wrote:
Void wrote:
rawrab wrote:For an assignment for legal writing one of the questions asks us to list relevant cases. My professor wants them to be in correct bluebook citation. When just naming a case in general, should there be a pinpoint cite? For example, should it be Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704, 119 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). or Forsyth v. Dugger, 523 N.E.2d 704 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988).


First of all, I don't know where you got this "III. App. Ct." thing, but you didn't get it from the bluebook.

Second, underlining is TTT. Italicize that shiz.

Third, the answer to your question is no pincite for citing case generally.


That's pretty much exactly how my LRW teacher wants us cite. Include the court's name along with the year in parentheses and underline the case name. So you're not necessarily doing it wrong.

And I didn't do pincites for a similar assignment. (Although I haven't got it back yet, so I might be wrong about it)


I was wrong about the Ill. App. Ct. thing- I was reading "Ill" as a roman numeral 3 (III) because of the font on TLS. Then realized it was saying ill, as in illinois.

As for italics, underlining is still acceptable but generally considered outdated.
Last edited by Void on Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rawrab
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby rawrab » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:25 pm

This way of writing the cite is the exact way that my prof wants it done. I don't care so much that it's correct in the bluebook because that is what she wants and I just want an A ha. Thanks for the input though, I'll ditch the pinpoint cite.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby kalvano » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:11 pm

My LRW class required underlining as opposed to italicizing, for clarity reasons.

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby random5483 » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:26 pm

Underlining or italicizing is fine for regular LRW bluebooking. Italicizing is the way you do it for legal journals.

Pin cites should almost always be used. If using no signal, see, see, e.g., see also, etc, you should have a pin cite. When using See generally or some of the other tags, a pin cite is not as important. For the purpose of an LRW class, just use pin cites for every citation unless you use the see generally tag (I never had need to use that my 1L year).

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:32 pm

random5483 wrote:Underlining or italicizing is fine for regular LRW bluebooking. Italicizing is the way you do it for legal journals.

Pin cites should almost always be used. If using no signal, see, see, e.g., see also, etc, you should have a pin cite. When using See generally or some of the other tags, a pin cite is not as important. For the purpose of an LRW class, just use pin cites for every citation unless you use the see generally tag (I never had need to use that my 1L year).


How do you pincite if you're just listing cases, as asked in the OP? If you have, for example, a list of cases you read in class this year, which page number do you cite for each citation?

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby random5483 » Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:09 pm

Void wrote:
random5483 wrote:Underlining or italicizing is fine for regular LRW bluebooking. Italicizing is the way you do it for legal journals.

Pin cites should almost always be used. If using no signal, see, see, e.g., see also, etc, you should have a pin cite. When using See generally or some of the other tags, a pin cite is not as important. For the purpose of an LRW class, just use pin cites for every citation unless you use the see generally tag (I never had need to use that my 1L year).


How do you pincite if you're just listing cases, as asked in the OP? If you have, for example, a list of cases you read in class this year, which page number do you cite for each citation?



I apologize, I misread the Ops post. I assumed he meant using cases in a paper. I never had to "list" a set of cases for my LRW class. I assume no pin cites would be required if you are merely listing the cases you are using.

User avatar
jeeptiger09
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby jeeptiger09 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:38 am

Void wrote:
random5483 wrote:Underlining or italicizing is fine for regular LRW bluebooking. Italicizing is the way you do it for legal journals.

Pin cites should almost always be used. If using no signal, see, see, e.g., see also, etc, you should have a pin cite. When using See generally or some of the other tags, a pin cite is not as important. For the purpose of an LRW class, just use pin cites for every citation unless you use the see generally tag (I never had need to use that my 1L year).


How do you pincite if you're just listing cases, as asked in the OP? If you have, for example, a list of cases you read in class this year, which page number do you cite for each citation?


If you're listing cases, like in the table of authorities, don't pincite. Just cite to the first page of the case.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby ph14 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:35 pm

I have a bluebook question too, I didn't want to start my own thread for a quick question. When citing a case and the assignment says give the "full citation" and lists among the information a Argued On and Decided On date, do I need to include those somehow? And if so, where would I find that in the Bluebook? If not, is the decided date the date that I use for the citation?

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:39 pm

ph14 wrote:I have a bluebook question too, I didn't want to start my own thread for a quick question. When citing a case and the assignment says give the "full citation" and lists among the information a Argued On and Decided On date, do I need to include those somehow? And if so, where would I find that in the Bluebook? If not, is the decided date the date that I use for the citation?


The "decided on" date is the relevant date for citation, and a "full citation" typically only includes one date. You only need the year (i.e. "2006" or "1978") and it goes inside the parenthesis after the page numbers.

Edit: this is the rule for typical practitioner citation. As evidenced by this thread, different professors vary in what they're looking for.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby ph14 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:43 pm

Void wrote:
ph14 wrote:I have a bluebook question too, I didn't want to start my own thread for a quick question. When citing a case and the assignment says give the "full citation" and lists among the information a Argued On and Decided On date, do I need to include those somehow? And if so, where would I find that in the Bluebook? If not, is the decided date the date that I use for the citation?


The "decided on" date is the relevant date for citation, and a "full citation" typically only includes one date. You only need the year (i.e. "2006" or "1978") and it goes inside the parenthesis after the page numbers.

Edit: this is the rule for typical practitioner citation. As evidenced by this thread, different professors vary in what they're looking for.


Okay thanks, that's what i thought. I wasn't sure why they gave us both the argued by and decided on dates, probably just to confuse us then.

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:46 pm

ph14 wrote:
Void wrote:
ph14 wrote:I have a bluebook question too, I didn't want to start my own thread for a quick question. When citing a case and the assignment says give the "full citation" and lists among the information a Argued On and Decided On date, do I need to include those somehow? And if so, where would I find that in the Bluebook? If not, is the decided date the date that I use for the citation?


The "decided on" date is the relevant date for citation, and a "full citation" typically only includes one date. You only need the year (i.e. "2006" or "1978") and it goes inside the parenthesis after the page numbers.

Edit: this is the rule for typical practitioner citation. As evidenced by this thread, different professors vary in what they're looking for.


Okay thanks, that's what i thought. I wasn't sure why they gave us both the argued by and decided on dates, probably just to confuse us then.


Yeah I don't know why they'd give the argued-on date. If you think about it, the case doesn't take on the force of law until it's decided. We don't use cases with pending decisions as precedent, so the arguing date is basically irrelevant most of the time.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Cupidity » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:47 pm

How does 119 follow 704?

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:53 pm

Cupidity wrote:How does 119 follow 704?


Is this one of those buddhist questions that doesn't actually have an answer?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby kalvano » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:42 pm

Cupidity wrote:How does 119 follow 704?



2 different reporters?

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Bronte » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:02 am

kalvano wrote:
Cupidity wrote:How does 119 follow 704?



2 different reporters?


119 cannot be the correct pincite.

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: quick bluebook question

Postby Void » Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:18 pm

betasteve wrote:
Bona Fides: 3L, Exec Board of LR.


I love that this thread has become a place to subtly brag about citation qualifications, and I love that I started it.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cavalier1138, cdotson2, joman8390, LandMermaid, tedofsandimas and 6 guests