Top Law Schools

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

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).

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.

ahh.. both good suggestions.. thanks.

Bluebook

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).

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

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.

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!