Top Law Schools

I have reviewed Rule 1.3, but there doesnt seem to a perfect match. I have a case that distinguishes a key fact from a general rule stated in highly influential case. I want to distinguish these cases, but without a parenthetical. The compare / with signals are recommended with parentheticals, but not as the general end of sentence cite.

Any recommendations?

Extension_Cord wrote:I have reviewed Rule 1.3, but there doesnt seem to a perfect match. I have a case that distinguishes a key fact from a general rule stated in highly influential case. I want to distinguish these cases, but without a parenthetical. The compare / with signals are recommended with parentheticals, but not as the general end of sentence cite.

Any recommendations?

But see?

ph14 wrote:

Extension_Cord wrote:I have reviewed Rule 1.3, but there doesnt seem to a perfect match. I have a case that distinguishes a key fact from a general rule stated in highly influential case. I want to distinguish these cases, but without a parenthetical. The compare / with signals are recommended with parentheticals, but not as the general end of sentence cite.

Any recommendations?

But see?

Does But see require the citation to be in actual conflict with the case Im supporting, or is it ok to use it just to distinguish the facts?

but see XXX when YYYY then ZZZZ. It is an exception to the rule, right?

bdubs wrote:but see XXX when YYYY then ZZZZ. It is an exception to the rule, right?

Not exception, just the facts of the cases are different and the court made it clear in distinguishing the cases.

Say theres a CL case with alot of weight that said A cant wear purple PJs when he sleeps sleep. Theres another case where B wears purple PJs when he sits at home watching TV, but changes out of them before going to sleep. The court found that since B did not sleep in purple PJs he did nothing wrong. However the court did this without specifically referencing to the first case.

I want to say that in my case, C was not wrong in wearing purple PJs, because he too did not sleep in his purple PJs. Since the first is so important I feel I need to express the distinguishing characteristics.

Could you do this:

C was not wrong in wearing purple PJs, because he too did not sleep in his purple PJs. Compare Case 1 (holding that A can't wear purple PJs when he sleeps) with Case 2 (holding that B can wear purple PJs when he sits at home watching TV so long as he changes out of them before going to sleep).

dougroberts wrote:Could you do this:

C was not wrong in wearing purple PJs, because he too did not sleep in his purple PJs. Compare Case 1 (holding that A can't wear purple PJs when he sleeps) with Case 2 (holding that B can wear purple PJs when he sits at home watching TV so long as he changes out of them before going to sleep).

No, compare is specifically for cites that support the proposition. Rule 1.2(b).

Extension_Cord wrote:

ph14 wrote:

Extension_Cord wrote:I have reviewed Rule 1.3, but there doesnt seem to a perfect match. I have a case that distinguishes a key fact from a general rule stated in highly influential case. I want to distinguish these cases, but without a parenthetical. The compare / with signals are recommended with parentheticals, but not as the general end of sentence cite.

Any recommendations?

But see?

Does But see require the citation to be in actual conflict with the case Im supporting, or is it ok to use it just to distinguish the facts?

See - cited authority clearly supports the proposition.

But see - cited authority clearly supports a proposition contrary to the main proposition.


Check out rule 1.2.

I found that professors are pretty relaxed with signals used not identically to how the bluebook says you should use them. I labored over whether to use a but see, contra or but cf. signal for a case and in retrospect I'm sure the prof. grading it wouldn't have cared. At least for 1L LRW.

BTW, I strongly recommend to use a parenthetical in the case you are describing, since it's a critical fact that was distinguished.

zomginternets wrote:I found that professors are pretty relaxed with signals used not identically to how the bluebook says you should use them. I labored over whether to use a but see, contra or but cf. signal for a case and in retrospect I'm sure the prof. grading it wouldn't have cared. At least for 1L LRW.

Whereas my LRW professor would have ripped you to shreds. Of course, she was a demon harpy masquerading a human being.

zomginternets wrote:BTW, I strongly recommend to use a parenthetical in the case you are describing, since it's a critical fact that was distinguished.

+1.

You should listen to ^him^.

betasteve wrote:

Extension_Cord wrote:

bdubs wrote:but see XXX when YYYY then ZZZZ. It is an exception to the rule, right?

Not exception, just the facts of the cases are different and the court made it clear in distinguishing the cases.

Say theres a CL case with alot of weight that said A cant wear purple PJs when he sleeps sleep. Theres another case where B wears purple PJs when he sits at home watching TV, but changes out of them before going to sleep. The court found that since B did not sleep in purple PJs he did nothing wrong. However the court did this without specifically referencing to the first case.

I want to say that in my case, C was not wrong in wearing purple PJs, because he too did not sleep in his purple PJs. Since the first is so important I feel I need to express the distinguishing characteristics.

The proper way, imo, would be to Cf. the case with a parenthetical.

This. And OP, why are you trying to avoid parentheticals? Parentheticals are your friend. Use them all of the time with any signal (i.e. not a direct cite). Redbook 8.19. The only exception is when you have a see generally to an entire work, and its relevance is obvious from the title itself.

You should use two seperate sentences for this:

Sleeping in PJs is illegal. Citation 1. However, wearing PJs before bed is not "sleeping in PJs" so long as the defendant takes them off before getting in bed. Citation 2.

It sounds to me like you're trying to communicate too much with signals.

Parentheticals are key. Don't avoid them, love them. Summarize your point in your own words, then use the parenthetical to show the case says the same thing.

But see P v. D, 123 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing . . . ).

There, perfect.

You guys are overthinking this and overusing signals/parantheticals when two sentences will suffice. Something as crucial as this needs to be communicated in a textual sentence.