## Contra- Bluebook Help

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
cmartin5970

Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm

### Contra- Bluebook Help

I have a quick question about bluebooking. I have found a case that has an opposite fact pattern as my case, and I want to say that an opposite outcome should come out of it. For example, in Case X A hits B and is guilty of battery. In my case, A did not hit B and I want to say he will not be guilty of battery. Would I be able to say that "One is not guilty of battery if he does not hit the other person" Contra Case X?

I am not sure if that is how Contra is supposed to be used, or if stating the opposite of the facts of a case and saying the opposite outcome will be reached is too much of a stretch and should not be done that way. We skipped the ICW section on Signals, so sorry if this is a stupid question.

homestyle28

Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:48 pm

### Re: Contra- Bluebook Help

First off, that sounds like the "denying the antecedent" logical fallacy, but to your question look up "But see" or "Compare with" in the index.

cmartin5970

Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm

### Re: Contra- Bluebook Help

Thanks, hopefully it makes more sense once I start writing it out and I'll take it to my professor. I just didn't want to use one of these signals for the completely wrong thing

Emma.

Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

### Re: Contra- Bluebook Help

My initial reaction would be that you'd use contra for similar facts and a different outcome. It's pretty easy to find cases that come out differently on different facts!

A. Nony Mouse

Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

### Re: Contra- Bluebook Help

Leaving aside whether the logic works, because I can't tell from the example, I don't think "But see" is right, because as I understand it, you use "but see" when you're acknowledging a case that goes against you. (i.e., "Under Jones v. Smith, my client wins. But see Doe v. Brown, 12 F.3d 34, 36 (12th Cir. 2017) (holding the opposite)."). "Compare with" might work, but you'd have to have both cases in the cite (I.e. "Compare Jones v. Smith [etc] with Doe v. Brown [etc.]"), so if you want to compare it with your own facts, it doesn't work so well. Honestly, you're using the opposite case to support your point, even though it doesn't directly say that, so I'd just use "See" and an explanatory parenthetical, or "See, e.g." (i.e. "Courts have only found sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of battery where the defendant hit the victim. See, e.g., Jones v. Smith [etc.] (insufficient evidence to prove battery where no evidence defendant hit victim). Here, because the defendant did not hit the victim, he cannot be guilty of battery." That's totally wrong, legally, but you get the idea.)
Last edited by A. Nony Mouse on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

laxbrah420

Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

### Re: Contra- Bluebook Help

brah contra is when a source states the contrary of your proposition...it's a contradiction. not directly supports it in the contrapositive.
If you don't feel like dropping a "see" or a "see also" bomb, rock a cf. It's the weakest of the signals so you're sort of excused from being required to have that shit directly support your proposition, but you want to use the case as a comparison (you could also use "compare... with")... just make it clear in your parenthetical why you're citing that shit.

disclaimer: 1l

Rotor

Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:06 pm

### Re: Contra- Bluebook Help

I agree with Emma. Different facts are different. As a couple others have stated, compare might be as good as it gets for your hypo.

As to the proper use of contra, it would be something like:

"The court held that paparazzi taking photos of the celebrity in her home with a telephoto lens from public property is an intrusion of seclusion. Lohan v. Adams, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 456, 467 (2012). Contra Allen v. Leibovitz, 123 N.Y.S. 654 (1997) (holding that there must be a physical trespass to violate the reasonable expectation of privacy)."

Edit to add. 1) I'm too lazy to make the italics etc. in TLS formatting and 2) I have no idea whether the propositions are correct statements of law. I just made it up...

romavia

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:43 am

deleted