Page 1 of 2
Bluebook rage
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:26 pm
by muddup
I've been looking through the BB to find the freaking rules for this and looking through 13.4 I just don't know how to put the thing together? Can anyone take pity on a poor 1L and help?
"In a discussion of the legislative history of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, you cite to a 1988 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee. This report was the 599th report in the 100th Congress. You want to cite to information in part III(A) of the report."
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:33 pm
by rinkrat19
S. Rep. No. 100-599, pt. 3(A) (1988).
Just my whack at it, and god knows I'm no expert.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:35 pm
by muddup
rinkrat19 wrote:S. Rep. No. 100-599, pt. 3(A) (1988).
Just my whack at it, and god knows I'm no expert.
Ok thanks! Looks pretty good so I'll go with it =) thanks so much
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:42 pm
by Lawbro
Are you doing the ICW's?
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:26 am
by Pokemon
The bluebook is a torture machine with no purpose. I cannot believe it is still around. Someone needs to write a law review article about the time losses/economic inefficiencies that thing causes.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:22 am
by dood
Pokemon wrote:The bluebook is a torture machine with no purpose. I cannot believe it is still around. Someone needs to write a law review article about the time losses/economic inefficiencies that thing causes.
been done, that someone is posner:
--LinkRemoved--
TL;DR:
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/quote-of ... -bluebook/
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:29 am
by Devlin
Lawbro wrote:Are you doing the ICW's?
God damn ICW
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:30 am
by dood
side note - appendix 2 in posner's article (his rules for his clerks) is particularly useful in the real world. contrary to what they tell u, the bluebook is largely irrelevant after law school.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:29 pm
by nealric
Seconded on the worthlessness of the Bluebook. It has become such a bloated mess that practitioners mostly ignore it (even more so for non-litigators).
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:55 pm
by ph14
ph14 wrote:Bluebook logic: It's BYU L. Rev. but N.Y.U. L. Rev.
.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:36 pm
by muddup
Thanks for all the sympathy guys/gals, I will return with more ICW suffering (4 more lessons to go!) and I appreciate y'all help!
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:48 am
by Pokemon
dood wrote:Pokemon wrote:The bluebook is a torture machine with no purpose. I cannot believe it is still around. Someone needs to write a law review article about the time losses/economic inefficiencies that thing causes.
been done, that someone is posner:
--LinkRemoved--
TL;DR:
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/quote-of ... -bluebook/
Speaking of Posner, I cannot help but be annoyed that an English major has become the father of law and economics. Not only that, but he had said that he does not like reading economics books if they have a lot of math.....
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:54 pm
by muddup
Why.....I can't figure this one out. My answer is all blue (i.e. correct, which means i'm missing something)
------------------------
6) You are researching Texas family law for an office memorandum. Your law office does not have any state materials, but you found the applicable provision, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.001, using LexisNexis. The screen in LexisNexis states that the text as it appears is current through the end of the 2009 Session.
Incorrect Citation: Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.001 (LEXIS through 2009 Sess.).
Hints:
Parenthetical: Have you given publisher information? T1.3 Texas
Check general format, spelling, spacing, and punctuation.
---------------------------------------------
Why is my answer all blue T.T?
Edited..
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:59 pm
by ph14
muddup wrote:Why.....I can't figure this one out. My answer is all blue (i.e. correct, which means i'm missing something)
------------------------
6) You are researching Texas family law for an office memorandum. Your law office does not have any state materials, but you found the applicable provision, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.001, using LexisNexis. The screen in LexisNexis states that the text as it appears is current through the end of the 2009 Session.
Incorrect Citation: Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.001 (LEXIS through 2009 Sess.).
Hints:
Parenthetical: Have you given publisher information? T1.3 Texas
Check general format, spelling, spacing, and punctuation.
---------------------------------------------
Why is my answer all blue T.T?
Edited..
Do you have Tex. Fam. Code Ann. in small caps?
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:06 am
by muddup
Ya I do, the trick is apparently "Parenthetical, Have you given publisher information? T1.3 Texas".
But I don't know wtf they are talking about. This is ridiculous...sigh
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:06 am
by ph14
muddup wrote:Ya I do, the trick is apparently "Parenthetical, Have you given publisher information? T1.3 Texas".
But I don't know wtf they are talking about. This is ridiculous...sigh
Try, just for laughs, "(West 2009)"
Edit: Also try "(Lexis 2009)"
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:09 am
by BullShitWithBravado
Buy the online version. So worth it.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:16 am
by muddup
Haha XD that ain't gonna work.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:17 am
by muddup
WHAT THE FUK
Correct Citation: Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.001 (West, LEXIS through 2009 Sess.).
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:28 am
by 09042014
dood wrote:Pokemon wrote:The bluebook is a torture machine with no purpose. I cannot believe it is still around. Someone needs to write a law review article about the time losses/economic inefficiencies that thing causes.
been done, that someone is posner:
--LinkRemoved--
TL;DR:
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/quote-of ... -bluebook/
Oh man that was a great read. Fuck the blue book.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:33 am
by dingbat
Pokemon wrote:dood wrote:Pokemon wrote:The bluebook is a torture machine with no purpose. I cannot believe it is still around. Someone needs to write a law review article about the time losses/economic inefficiencies that thing causes.
been done, that someone is posner:
--LinkRemoved--
TL;DR:
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/quote-of ... -bluebook/
Speaking of Posner, I cannot help but be annoyed that an English major has become the father of law and economics. Not only that, but he had said that he does not like reading economics books if they have a lot of math.....
Considering that he's actually read Keynes, whereas a plethora of economists haven't, I don't think it's that annoying
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:39 am
by stillwater
dingbat wrote:Pokemon wrote:dood wrote:Pokemon wrote:The bluebook is a torture machine with no purpose. I cannot believe it is still around. Someone needs to write a law review article about the time losses/economic inefficiencies that thing causes.
been done, that someone is posner:
--LinkRemoved--
TL;DR:
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/quote-of ... -bluebook/
Speaking of Posner, I cannot help but be annoyed that an English major has become the father of law and economics. Not only that, but he had said that he does not like reading economics books if they have a lot of math.....
Considering that he's actually read Keynes, whereas a plethora of economists haven't, I don't think it's that annoying
Posner is the man
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:09 am
by kalvano
muddup wrote:WHAT THE FUK
Correct Citation: Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.001 (West, LEXIS through 2009 Sess.).
Texas codes will always have West in the parenthetical, at least for law school purposes. No one gives a shit once you start practicing, you can just cite to the code and the year.
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:12 pm
by muddup
Thanks for all the help and consolation thus far. Round 101:
How do I put a citation in the middle of the sentence, if I have two citations total? Does this look right?
"Every law student has to work hard," Bob 34 U.S. 129, "but not too long." Joe 34 U.S. 534.
Is that right? Or do I use semi-colons? Most importantly where is the freaking rule for this in the BB?
Re: Bluebook rage
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:27 pm
by A. Nony Mouse
muddup wrote:Thanks for all the help and consolation thus far. Round 101:
How do I put a citation in the middle of the sentence, if I have two citations total? Does this look right?
"Every law student has to work hard," Bob, 34 U.S. at 129, "but not too long." Joe, 34 U.S. at 534.
Is that right? Or do I use semi-colons? Most importantly where is the freaking rule for this in the BB?
That's pretty much right. I fixed a few things. (That's assuming you've cited the cases previously, of course.) I have no idea where the rule is in the BB, but that's what I was taught, anyway.