Top Law Schools

Just the page number part. Is it 1-2?

Extension_Cord wrote:Just the page number part. Is it 1-2?

Yes. "310-22" or "22-23"

Smith v. Jones, 34 F.2d 533-34 (Whatever 1994).

NYC Law wrote:Smith v. Jones, 34 F.2d 525, 533-34 (Whatever 1994).

Gotta cite the first page too, as above.

Seriously? What is up with all of these basic blue book questions today. Its Nov and you're just now citing multiple pages? Not to mention its clearly in the rules...subdivisions, not to mention half of the examples.

blowhard wrote:Seriously? What is up with all of these basic blue book questions today. Its Nov and you're just now citing multiple pages? Not to mention its clearly in the rules...subdivisions, not to mention half of the examples.

Their memos are due. But yeah this one is pretty bad.

Bronte wrote:

blowhard wrote:Seriously? What is up with all of these basic blue book questions today. Its Nov and you're just now citing multiple pages? Not to mention its clearly in the rules...subdivisions, not to mention half of the examples.

Their memos are due.

Yeah, but shouldn't they have turned some kind of open memo or something in before now? And they've all been super simple problems.

blowhard wrote:

Bronte wrote:

blowhard wrote:Seriously? What is up with all of these basic blue book questions today. Its Nov and you're just now citing multiple pages? Not to mention its clearly in the rules...subdivisions, not to mention half of the examples.

Their memos are due.

Yeah, but shouldn't they have turned some kind of open memo or something in before now? And they've all been super simple problems.

This one's bad.

Bronte wrote:

NYC Law wrote:Smith v. Jones, 34 F.2d 530, 533-34 (Whatever 1994).

Gotta cite the first page too, as above.

Oops, you're right. Fix'd.

Relax, I was just making sure I was correct.

Extension_Cord wrote:Relax, I was just making sure I was correct.

If you need verification on this...which is clearly spelled out in the rules...you're going to have major issues when you get to the complex stuff that requires reading and interpreting multiple rules together.

blowhard wrote:

Extension_Cord wrote:Relax, I was just making sure I was correct.

If you need verification on this...which is clearly spelled out in the rules...you're going to have major issues when you get to the complex stuff that requires reading and interpreting multiple rules together.

Its so much faster to just ask on tls.com and move on with the rest of the memo and check.

You never ask questions when you are 99% sure of something, but you just want to verify? Ironically thats pretty much what you do in a memo before getting into the duscussion, state the issue in away to make sure your reader and yourself have a meeting of the minds on the same subject-matter and facts.

Extension_Cord wrote:

blowhard wrote:

Extension_Cord wrote:Relax, I was just making sure I was correct.

If you need verification on this...which is clearly spelled out in the rules...you're going to have major issues when you get to the complex stuff that requires reading and interpreting multiple rules together.

Its so much faster to just ask on tls.com and move on with the rest of the memo and check.

You never ask questions when you are 99% sure of something, but you just want to verify? Ironically thats pretty much what you do in a memo before getting into the duscussion, state the issue in away to make sure your reader and yourself have a meeting of the minds on the same subject-matter and facts.

That's my point. Asking on TLS is the lazy way out. You need to learn the BB inside and out (especially if you plan on doing a journal) and you won't do that unless you spend an hour looking for a ridiculous rule. BTW, at Michigan getting help on citations for a memo violates the professors class policy for this very reason. You may want to check at your school...

If its faster to ask TLS than to look in the BB, you really are an idiot.

You're all a bunch of noobs for failing to mention the critical en dash.