Is there a citation generator for law school? Forum

[trayball23]

I used citation gens all in college and I would be shocked if there wasnt one for law.Anyone come across one?

[LAWYER2]

westlaw next allows you to copy and paste w/ correct citation. I use it to double check my cites.
Lexis has some MS Word plug-in that cites, but honestly Westlaw-next blows them away.

[random5483]

westlaw next allows you to copy and paste w/ correct citation. I use it to double check my cites.
Lexis has some MS Word plug-in that cites, but honestly Westlaw-next blows them away.

Westlaw Next works well for most regular legal writing (other than legal journals). You can copy the citation from any case/statute/etc with a generated citation. The citations are occasionally incorrect and in some cases it lists the citations for each of the reporters (meaning you might have to edit it). I used it for my second semester 1L LRW paper and had no issues.

[zomginternets]

I think that Westlaw next is only good for published opinions and law reviews. the non-published opinions are incorrectly cited, as are the majority of non-law review secondary sources. absolutely do not rely on it for LR cite-checking.

[kalvano]

[paratactical]

If you use the Lexis or West copy cites, be sure to double check their abbreviations of case names. They often miss words meant to be shortened.

[Rotor]

If you use the Lexis or West copy cites, be sure to double check their abbreviations of case names. They often miss words meant to be shortened.

And some abbreviated elements are improperly closed up. E.g. F.Supp. instead of F. Supp.

[paratactical]

If you use the Lexis or West copy cites, be sure to double check their abbreviations of case names. They often miss words meant to be shortened.

And some abbreviated elements are improperly closed up. E.g. F.Supp. instead of F. Supp.

They do it to courts too.

[kaiser]

Always keep this in mind: The cases in Westlaw & Lexis are often just word for word of what the judge/clerks wrote. Some judges choose not to follow all Bluebook conventions, some make Bluebooking mistakes, etc. Thus, you can't just rely on the accuracy of the citations, because they often aren't in proper Bluebook format.

[quakeroats]

Always keep this in mind: The cases in Westlaw & Lexis are often just word for word of what the judge/clerks wrote. Some judges choose not to follow all Bluebook conventions, some make Bluebooking mistakes, etc. Thus, you can't just rely on the accuracy of the citations, because they often aren't in proper Bluebook format.

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook. For a short, interesting take on the Bluebook, read this: --LinkRemoved--

[npe]

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook.

This is wrong.

[hawkeye22]

All that matters is that in practice nobody actually cares how you cite things so long as they have a reporter volume and page number.

[Total Litigator]

Just learn how to cite you lazy bum. It's an important skill to learn.

[paratactical]

All that matters is that in practice most respectable firms will have paralegals to fix any issues that would cause briefing to be rejected by a court.

[smokyroom26]

psssssh Nineteenth Edition is where it's at.

[I.P. Daly]

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook.

This is wrong.

I'm sure more people would use the BB if it was actually organized in a user friendly way.

[paratactical]

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook.

This is wrong.

I'm sure more people would use the BB if it was actually organized in a user friendly way.

I think the BB is actually pretty decently organized. The tables and charts in the back section of the book have most of the information you need regularly once you know the rules. I really don't understand why the BB gives people such a hard time.

[quakeroats]

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook.

This is wrong.

I'm sure more people would use the BB if it was actually organized in a user friendly way.

I think the BB is actually pretty decently organized. The tables and charts in the back section of the book have most of the information you need regularly once you know the rules. I really don't understand why the BB gives people such a hard time.

It's not that it gives me or anyone else a hard time. It's that the Bluebook wastes everyone's time. There's almost no redeeming value in Bluebooking, and that's what's frustrating. Every minute you spend correcting abbreviations is a minute you could spend on something worthwhile.

A few examples from Posner's article:

" Efforts to impose uniformity beyond the basic conventions encounter rapidly diminishing returns well illustrated by The
Bluebook’s obsession with abbreviations. An example that I have picked literally
at random is “C.Ag.” What does “C.Ag.” stand for? Why, of course, the Código
de Águas of Brazil. Now suppose one had occasion to cite the Código de Águas.
Why would one want to abbreviate it? The abbreviation would be meaningless
to someone who was not a Brazilian lawyer, and perhaps to Brazilian lawyers as
well (but do they abbreviate Código de Águas “C.Ag”?). The basic rule of
abbreviating, ignored by the authors of The Bluebook, is to avoid nonobvious
abbreviations: don’t make the reader puzzle over an abbreviation, as The
Bluebook does routinely. Consider “Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J.,” “ILSA J. Int’l
& Comp. L.,” “Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J.,” and “AIPLA Q.J.” These are names
of journals. Now try figuring out “B.T.A.M. (P-H),” “A. Ct. Crim. App.,”
“A.F. Ct. Crim. App.,” “C.G. Ct. Crim. App.,” “N-M Ct. Crim. App.,” “Ne.
Reg’l Parole Comm’n,” and “Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co.”
What is the point? It’s as if there were a heavy tax on letters, making it
costly to write out Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals instead of
abbreviating it “C.G. Ct. Crim. App.”"

"But what is the point of such rules as that “n law review footnotes, a short
form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited
in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including ‘id.’) in
one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise a full citation is required.”
7
This
reads like a parody, but is not. There are more than 150 pages of such “rules.""

"So Justice Blackmun, though he let his law clerks write most of his opinions, citechecked the
clerks’ drafts meticulously and is reputed to have been a positively awesome bluebooker,
despite which his opinions are not generally admired, even by those who like the outcomes.
(Although the Supreme Court has its own citation system, it is very limited, and The
Bluebook is available to fill the interstices.) Blackmun even bluebooked his clerks’ bench
memos!"

[quakeroats]

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook.

This is wrong.

I'm sure more people would use the BB if it was actually organized in a user friendly way.

I think the BB is actually pretty decently organized. The tables and charts in the back section of the book have most of the information you need regularly once you know the rules. I really don't understand why the BB gives people such a hard time.

It's not that it gives me or anyone else a hard time. It's that the Bluebook wastes everyone's time. There's almost no redeeming value in Bluebooking, and that's what's frustrating. Every minute you spend correcting abbreviations is a minute you could spend on something worthwhile.

A few examples from Posner's article:

" Efforts to impose uniformity beyond the basic conventions encounter rapidly diminishing returns well illustrated by The
Bluebook’s obsession with abbreviations. An example that I have picked literally
at random is “C.Ag.” What does “C.Ag.” stand for? Why, of course, the Código
de Águas of Brazil. Now suppose one had occasion to cite the Código de Águas.
Why would one want to abbreviate it? The abbreviation would be meaningless
to someone who was not a Brazilian lawyer, and perhaps to Brazilian lawyers as
well (but do they abbreviate Código de Águas “C.Ag”?). The basic rule of
abbreviating, ignored by the authors of The Bluebook, is to avoid nonobvious
abbreviations: don’t make the reader puzzle over an abbreviation, as The
Bluebook does routinely. Consider “Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J.,” “ILSA J. Int’l
& Comp. L.,” “Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J.,” and “AIPLA Q.J.” These are names
of journals. Now try figuring out “B.T.A.M. (P-H),” “A. Ct. Crim. App.,”
“A.F. Ct. Crim. App.,” “C.G. Ct. Crim. App.,” “N-M Ct. Crim. App.,” “Ne.
Reg’l Parole Comm’n,” and “Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co.”
What is the point? It’s as if there were a heavy tax on letters, making it
costly to write out Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals instead of
abbreviating it “C.G. Ct. Crim. App.”"

"But what is the point of such rules as that “n law review footnotes, a short
form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited
in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including ‘id.’) in
one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise a full citation is required.”
7
This
reads like a parody, but is not. There are more than 150 pages of such “rules.""

"So Justice Blackmun, though he let his law clerks write most of his opinions, citechecked the
clerks’ drafts meticulously and is reputed to have been a positively awesome bluebooker,
despite which his opinions are not generally admired, even by those who like the outcomes.
(Although the Supreme Court has its own citation system, it is very limited, and The
Bluebook is available to fill the interstices.) Blackmun even bluebooked his clerks’ bench
memos!"

[leobowski]

Some of the nitpicky minutiae of the bluebook is relatively unimportant. But you still want to have a good grasp on the bluebook. At least come out of law school with a basic idea of case and statute citations, and be able to quickly find what you don't know.

That said, some courts literally don't care at all about accurate cites.

[quakeroats]

Some of the nitpicky minutiae of the bluebook is relatively unimportant. But you still want to have a good grasp on the bluebook. At least come out of law school with a basic idea of case and statute citations, and be able to quickly find what you don't know.

That said, some courts literally don't care at all about accurate cites.

It's nearly impossible to leave law school without a basic idea of case and statute citations. That's an hour of learning at most. Correctly and completely apply the Bluebook requires that you read it in full, perhaps more than once. Posner's citation method is 2 pages. Chicago's Maroon book is around 50. The Bluebook is over 500 and growing.

[pleasetryagain]

citegenie

[Oban]

In practice all that maters is the Local Rules, and I'm finding that my local courts don't really give a fuck about the blue book, all that maters is that there is something that looks like a normal citation to a case or statute. Thus you will learn something about the bluebook during law school which will serve as a foundation for whatever jurisdiction you end up practicing in.

[BeenDidThat]

Always keep this in mind: The cases in Westlaw & Lexis are often just word for word of what the judge/clerks wrote. Some judges choose not to follow all Bluebook conventions, some make Bluebooking mistakes, etc. Thus, you can't just rely on the accuracy of the citations, because they often aren't in proper Bluebook format.

The Bluebook is ignored in practice. Most jurisdictions have their own system of citation, but not a single one follows the Bluebook. For a short, interesting take on the Bluebook, read this: --LinkRemoved--

Your comment is misleading at best. The jurisdictions with which I am familiar have a few special rules, but other than that, they follow the Bluebook. Granted, I do not have familiarity with a ton of jdx. But, I have a hard time believing that you do, either.

If you want to advocate Posner's take on citation, go ahead. But making shit up is making shit up. Don't do it.

[kalvano]

Also, Posner is, well...Posner. He can do pretty much whatever he wants.