Top Law Schools

I am using one rule but getting the rules from two sections that are not next to each other. How would I cite it? For example, rule 11 sections (a) and (c). Would I just write Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (a), (c).

Bluebook. It's in there. It has an index for a reason.

kalvano wrote:Bluebook. It's in there. It has an index for a reason.

Kalvano, one day you will look back and think - am I lonely and unhappy because I am bitter, or am I bitter because I am lonely and unhappy --- and the answer will be a resounding YES! and then you will wish you could have done things differently... well - do things differently. from now on, if you dont want to answer a fucking question, just do not answer it. for now on instead of responding to questions like a fucking dickhead just to feel good about yourself, how about just NOT RESPONDING

nucky thompson wrote:

kalvano wrote:Bluebook. It's in there. It has an index for a reason.

Kalvano, one day you will look back and think - am I lonely and unhappy because I am bitter, or am I bitter because I am lonely and unhappy --- and the answer will be a resounding YES! and then you will wish you could have done things differently... well - do things differently. from now on, if you dont want to answer a fucking question, just do not answer it. for now on instead of responding to questions like a fucking dickhead just to feel good about yourself, how about just NOT RESPONDING

Ask a stupid question, get a clear and succinct answer that explains where to find the information you seek. Yeah, real dick move, way more assholish than launching a tirade against a total stranger. And not answering the question at all. You fucking halfwit.

nucky thompson wrote:

kalvano wrote:Bluebook. It's in there. It has an index for a reason.

Kalvano, one day you will look back and think - am I lonely and unhappy because I am bitter, or am I bitter because I am lonely and unhappy --- and the answer will be a resounding YES! and then you will wish you could have done things differently... well - do things differently. from now on, if you dont want to answer a fucking question, just do not answer it. for now on instead of responding to questions like a fucking dickhead just to feel good about yourself, how about just NOT RESPONDING

Get the fuck out of here.

Kalvano is right. OP needs to learn how to Bluebook and the easiest way is to just figure it out yourself. It's not hard. Use the fucking index.

AVBucks4239 wrote:

nucky thompson wrote:

kalvano wrote:Bluebook. It's in there. It has an index for a reason.

Kalvano, one day you will look back and think - am I lonely and unhappy because I am bitter, or am I bitter because I am lonely and unhappy --- and the answer will be a resounding YES! and then you will wish you could have done things differently... well - do things differently. from now on, if you dont want to answer a fucking question, just do not answer it. for now on instead of responding to questions like a fucking dickhead just to feel good about yourself, how about just NOT RESPONDING

Get the fuck out of here.

Kalvano is right. OP needs to learn how to Bluebook and the easiest way is to just figure it out yourself. It's not hard. Use the fucking index.

Hey - white knight . . .

Kalvano may be right - you may be right - but OP did not get on TLS for an answer his legal writing prof would have given. By your logic many questions on TLS should go unanswered - law student need to learn legal doctrine and the "easiest" way is to just figure it out for themselves - its not hard, just use the fucking case opinions right??? (bluebook index is just about as easy to understand as case opinions)

haines8 wrote:I am using one rule but getting the rules from two sections that are not next to each other. How would I cite it? For example, rule 11 sections (a) and (c). Would I just write Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (a), (c).

Hey, sorry everyone on here acts like a douchebag. I'll try to answer your question.

I'm not a BB pro, so I can't guarantee you this is the right answer, but I think the correct citation format would be like this:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), (c). (basically the same as you wrote, just put the "(a)" directly after the 11).

I think the reason why you asked the question is because the BB in both sections B5.1.3 and R12.9.3 only gives examples of how to cite to one particular rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it seems to give no guidance on how to cite multiple rules at the same time--which is why I'm not 100% sure about my answer. I just searched for briefs that have made the same citation and that's what I found--so I think it should be right.

Anyway, hope that helps!

Take care.

nucky thompson wrote:

AVBucks4239 wrote:

nucky thompson wrote:

kalvano wrote:Bluebook. It's in there. It has an index for a reason.

Kalvano, one day you will look back and think - am I lonely and unhappy because I am bitter, or am I bitter because I am lonely and unhappy --- and the answer will be a resounding YES! and then you will wish you could have done things differently... well - do things differently. from now on, if you dont want to answer a fucking question, just do not answer it. for now on instead of responding to questions like a fucking dickhead just to feel good about yourself, how about just NOT RESPONDING

Get the fuck out of here.

Kalvano is right. OP needs to learn how to Bluebook and the easiest way is to just figure it out yourself. It's not hard. Use the fucking index.

Hey - white knight . . .

Kalvano may be right - you may be right - but OP did not get on TLS for an answer his legal writing prof would have given. By your logic many questions on TLS should go unanswered - law student need to learn legal doctrine and the "easiest" way is to just figure it out for themselves - its not hard, just use the fucking case opinions right??? (bluebook index is just about as easy to understand as case opinions)

Give a man a fish...Teach a man to fish...

Also, I'm with AVBucks: GTFO with this white-knight shit.

nucky thompson wrote:Kalvano, one day you will look back and think - am I lonely and unhappy because I am bitter, or am I bitter because I am lonely and unhappy --- and the answer will be a resounding YES! and then you will wish you could have done things differently... well - do things differently. from now on, if you dont want to answer a fucking question, just do not answer it. for now on instead of responding to questions like a fucking dickhead just to feel good about yourself, how about just NOT RESPONDING

Nucky, you sound pretty bitter. Lots of unnecessary ad-homs. Why don't you take some quiet time to think about that.

This whole string was hilarious. You are all lawyers by now and probably fighting about fighting in court. I've been practicing for 10 years and I happened upon this string searching for an answer to the original question...usually google is a lot faster than message boards or bluebook and just as accurate. But I'm sure someone will ad hom attack me as lazy and a shitty lawyer.

attorneytpc wrote:You are all lawyers by now and probably fighting about fighting in court.

I never go to court and haven't cited anything since law school. But if I had to, I could still figure out how to because the Bluebook still has an index and I learned how to use it.

kalvano wrote:

attorneytpc wrote:You are all lawyers by now and probably fighting about fighting in court.

I never go to court and haven't cited anything since law school. But if I had to, I could still figure out how to because the Bluebook still has an index and I learned how to use it.

I'm trying to find out the answer to this as well. Do you just Fed.R.Civ.P. 25 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)?

Kids don't realize the bluebook is to train them to understand statutory schemes.

Finding dat cross reference is what you'll need to do to answer a client's question on some obscure statutory questions.

sparty99 wrote:I'm trying to find out the answer to this as well. Do you just Fed.R.Civ.P. 25 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)?

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).

Spaces between.

Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

Are you trying to teach us about cognitive dissonance or irony?

Too lazy to read the thread, but if you have a BBing question, PM me and i'll tell you the answer.

Minnietron wrote:

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

Are you trying to teach us about cognitive dissonance or irony?

Ha nicely done. I was wondering if someone would divert on that point. But unfortunately your analysis is incorrect. An answer in the negative is still an answer.

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

It wasn't a backhanded response, it was pretty straightforward. It's one thing to have a question about some obscure point of law that you don't quite get, and quite another to have a question about how to do something with a reference manual and guide that literally has a built-in "how to use this book" guide printed on it.

BottomOfTotem wrote:

Minnietron wrote:

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

Are you trying to teach us about cognitive dissonance or irony?

Ha nicely done. I was wondering if someone would divert on that point. But unfortunately your analysis is incorrect. An answer in the negative is still an answer.

If you want to get pedantic, the language "simply answer the question" also disqualifies your post pursuant your posting rules.

Minnietron wrote:

BottomOfTotem wrote:

Minnietron wrote:

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

Are you trying to teach us about cognitive dissonance or irony?

Ha nicely done. I was wondering if someone would divert on that point. But unfortunately your analysis is incorrect. An answer in the negative is still an answer.

If you want to get pedantic, the language "simply answer the question" also disqualifies your post pursuant your posting rules.

Ha fair enough point. I don't necessarily agree, but I see some truth to your response.

kalvano wrote:

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

It wasn't a backhanded response, it was pretty straightforward. It's one thing to have a question about some obscure point of law that you don't quite get, and quite another to have a question about how to do something with a reference manual and guide that literally has a built-in "how to use this book" guide printed on it.

I disagree.

When someone asks you a question, and instead of providing an exact answer, you provide a resource that you find useful - that is not direct. If you answered the question plainly (i.e. it is done like this: Rule 34...), that'd be direct.

Also, not only is indirectness a synonym for backhandedness, you responded to a post seeking help with an inference that the person was inept. Acting as though you care, and that you want to help, while calling the person inept, is another example of a backhanded response.

BottomOfTotem wrote:

kalvano wrote:

BottomOfTotem wrote:Nucky is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over. Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

It wasn't a backhanded response, it was pretty straightforward. It's one thing to have a question about some obscure point of law that you don't quite get, and quite another to have a question about how to do something with a reference manual and guide that literally has a built-in "how to use this book" guide printed on it.

I disagree.

When someone asks you a question, and instead of providing an exact answer, you provide a resource that you find useful - that is not direct. If you answered the question plainly (i.e. it is done like this: Rule 34...), that'd be direct.

Also, not only is indirectness a synonym for backhandedness, you responded to a post seeking help with an inference that the person was inept. Acting as though you care, and that you want to help, while calling the person inept, is another example of a backhanded response.

I'm sorry you made incorrect inferences. I thought I was pretty clear that I thought he was inept and still do.

BottomOfTotem wrote: is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over.Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

So the bolded is "simply answer[ing] the question"? If so, I would not want to read your memos or briefs!