Interesting(?) citation question Forum

[mr.hands]

How do you cite a non-statement (something that *doesn't* appear in a particular court decision)?

For example: If i want to say "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z."

Since i'm suggesting that a proposition doesn't appear in those cases, i'm not sure how I should cite X, Y, or Z.

Do i just use "See"?

(Disclaimer: I'm awful at bluebooking, so forgive me if this is straightforward)

[Bronte]

It's an awkward thing. There are some ways around it. One is to try to find a source that directly states the negative proposition. Another is to quote what it does say on the point and then follow it with an explanation why this doesnt mean what the opposition says it means. If neither of these work, then yes I would use the "see" signal and a pincite to the part of the opinion that would be expected to have the proposition.

[nevdash]

No matter which part of the opinion you cite, you do have you use "see." [No signal] = the cited source directly conveys the proposition for which you are citing it; See = you can draw an inference to the proposition for which the source is cited from the source. Since the source doesn't directly say "we are not holding X" (well, some opinions do, but you probably wouldn't be asking this question if it were that easy), you need to make an inference in order to reach the proposition that they are not holding X.

[Total Litigator]

How do you cite a non-statement (something that *doesn't* appear in a particular court decision)?

For example: If i want to say "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z."

Since i'm suggesting that a proposition doesn't appear in those cases, i'm not sure how I should cite X, Y, or Z.

Do i just use "See"?

(Disclaimer: I'm awful at bluebooking, so forgive me if this is straightforward)

Am I totally off-base byrecommending you just use your original language, i.e. "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z"? No need to get fancy if you don't need to.

Also, I'm not great at blue booking either, but I don't think there is a standard bluebook phrase that would clearly communicate what you're trying to say.

[nevdash]

How do you cite a non-statement (something that *doesn't* appear in a particular court decision)?

For example: If i want to say "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z."

Since i'm suggesting that a proposition doesn't appear in those cases, i'm not sure how I should cite X, Y, or Z.

Do i just use "See"?

(Disclaimer: I'm awful at bluebooking, so forgive me if this is straightforward)

Am I totally off-base by saying you just use your original language, i.e. "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z"?

He's not asking how to formulate his sentence in the body; he's asking about how he should cite the sources.

[Total Litigator]

How do you cite a non-statement (something that *doesn't* appear in a particular court decision)?

For example: If i want to say "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z."

Since i'm suggesting that a proposition doesn't appear in those cases, i'm not sure how I should cite X, Y, or Z.

Do i just use "See"?

(Disclaimer: I'm awful at bluebooking, so forgive me if this is straightforward)

Am I totally off-base by saying you just use your original language, i.e. "Despite what the district court stated, case X doesn't support (some proposition), nor does case Y or Z"?

He's not asking how to formulate his sentence in the body; he's asking about how he should cite the sources.

Ummm... okay then "Despite what the district court stated, Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) doesn't support (some proposition), nor do Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) or Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008)."? Or am I missing something?

(edited for grammar, i.e. "does" to "do")

[nevdash]

Ummm... okay then "Despite what the district court stated, Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) doesn't support (some proposition), nor does Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) or Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008)."? Or am I missing something?

They would be misleading if you used no signals (because of what I said in my above post), and they should also include parenthetical statements. Also, if he's working on an academic paper, the citations should be in footnotes, and if he's working on a court document, they should go in a citation string after the sentence.

[Total Litigator]

Ummm... okay then "Despite what the district court stated, Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) doesn't support (some proposition), nor does Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) or Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008)."? Or am I missing something?

They would be misleading if you used no signals (because of what I said in my above post), and they should also include parenthetical statements. Also, if he's working on an academic paper, the citations should be in footnotes, and if he's working on a court document, they should go in a citation string after the sentence.

I disagree. It's called writing a sentence that makes sense. No need for fancy bluebooking.

Also, at least provide an example of how you would use "see" or "see also". Personally, off the top of my head I can't think of any way that wouldn't be confusing or unclear. Certainly you could throw in some parentheticals to explain why you are citing to the cases, but that all seems a bit superfluous.

OP, help us out. Nevdash is starting to confuse me.

[nevdash]

Ummm... okay then "Despite what the district court stated, Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) doesn't support (some proposition), nor does Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) or Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008)."? Or am I missing something?

They would be misleading if you used no signals (because of what I said in my above post), and they should also include parenthetical statements. Also, if he's working on an academic paper, the citations should be in footnotes, and if he's working on a court document, they should go in a citation string after the sentence.

I disagree. It's called writing a sentence that makes sense. No need for fancy bluebooking.

Also, at least provide an example of how you would use "see" or "see also". Personally, off the top of my head I can't think of any way that wouldn't be unclear or confusing. Certainly you could throw in some parentheticals to explain why you are citing to the cases, but that all seems a bit superfluous.

"Despite what the district court stated, Smith doesn't support X, nor does Doe or Suck. See Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008) (holding Y); Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) (holding Z); Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) (holding Z)."

[Total Litigator]

Ummm... okay then "Despite what the district court stated, Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) doesn't support (some proposition), nor does Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) or Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008)."? Or am I missing something?

They would be misleading if you used no signals (because of what I said in my above post), and they should also include parenthetical statements. Also, if he's working on an academic paper, the citations should be in footnotes, and if he's working on a court document, they should go in a citation string after the sentence.

I disagree. It's called writing a sentence that makes sense. No need for fancy bluebooking.

Also, at least provide an example of how you would use "see" or "see also". Personally, off the top of my head I can't think of any way that wouldn't be unclear or confusing. Certainly you could throw in some parentheticals to explain why you are citing to the cases, but that all seems a bit superfluous.

"Despite what the district court stated, Smith doesn't support X, nor does Doe or Suck. See Suck v. It, 783 U.S. 010 (2008) (holding Y); Jane v. Doe, 456 U.S. 324 (2003) (holding Z); Bob v. Smith, 533 U.S. 123 (2001) (holding Z)."

Ah, yeah that would work. I guess OP could either do what you have just recommended, or do what I recommended but use the sentence as the intro to a paragraph explaining why. I guess it just depends on how much OP want to discuss the point.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I like nevdash's solution; I think you'd need parentheticals in that situation to make your argument clear.

[target]

use accord and see generally