Bluebook Help Forum

[lawschoolproblems86]

I've found three different sections in the Bluebook where it states how you cite an unpublished case from Lexis or Westlaw. However, does anybody know where I can find information on how you would do a short abbreviated cite or Id. on an unpublished case after the first time. I am pretty sure I will get marked down if I use the full cite every time I reference that case, but I am unable to find how it would be shortened for any future references in the paper.

THANKS.

[drmguy]

It's my understanding that you should not use an unpublished case.

[Norwood]

i found it and you should be able to.

a part of the paper is bluebooking so keep trying hard and stop cheating!

[Bronte]

It's my understanding that you should not use an unpublished case.

This is not correct. Unpublished cases are commonly cited. To answer the OP, it's as follows:

First cite: Steyne v. Steyne (In re Steyne), Nos. CIV. A. 97–07304–W, 97–80348–W, 1998 WL 34020729, at *3 (Bankr. D.S.C. Feb. 17, 1998).

Short cite: Steyne, 1998 WL 34020729, at *4.

Id. cite: Id. at *5.

[03121202698008]

It's my understanding that you should not use an unpublished case.

It's my understanding that if you ever need to cite a recent development, you have no choice. Or issues that don't come up in final published orders. (e.g. Denial of discovery order, etc.) You should use published if available and on same topic, but citing unpublished isn't a problem.

Also, Bronte's examples are correct. Except I'd omit the (In re) part off the top of my head. Though that may be incorrect. (Actially, in bankruptcy wouldn't it just be In re name?)

[itsirtou]

i found it and you should be able to.

a part of the paper is bluebooking so keep trying hard and stop cheating!

maybe they're doing a cite check and not a paper...?

[Bronte]

It's my understanding that you should not use an unpublished case.

It's my understanding that if you ever need to cite a recent development, you have no choice. Or issues that don't come up in final published orders. (e.g. Denial of discovery order, etc.) You should use published if available and on same topic, but citing unpublished isn't a problem.

Also, Bronte's examples are correct. Except I'd omit the (In re) part off the top of my head. Though that may be incorrect. (Actially, in bankruptcy wouldn't it just be In re name?)

No "In re" is included. It's rule 10.2.1(a).

Edit:

(Actially, in bankruptcy wouldn't it just be In re name?)

It depends on whether it's an adversary proceeding or not. The case I cited was an adversary proceeding, which is a civil suit filed in a bankruptcy case. If the opinion concerns only the bankruptcy petition itself, it will just be In re Whatever.

[drmguy]

It's my understanding that you should not use an unpublished case.

It's my understanding that if you ever need to cite a recent development, you have no choice. Or issues that don't come up in final published orders. (e.g. Denial of discovery order, etc.) You should use published if available and on same topic, but citing unpublished isn't a problem.

Also, Bronte's examples are correct. Except I'd omit the (In re) part off the top of my head. Though that may be incorrect. (Actially, in bankruptcy wouldn't it just be In re name?)

This was my understanding. Only do it when necessary.