Page 1 of 1
Bluebook 10.2.2 Ambiguity?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:51 am
by alphaparrot
So, in 10.2.2 BB states: "Abbreviate states, countries, and other geographical units as indicated in table T10 unless the geographical unit is the entire name of the party (as opposed to just a part thereof)." My question: when the BB says "entire name," does that include an omitted portion of a name. For example, Doe v. State of California, 123 U.S. 456 (1999). 10.2.1(f) says drop the "State of," leaving Doe v. California, 123 U.S. 456 (1999). Now, would you abbreviate "California" down to Cal. (ala T10) or would you leave it as California? I know the example, in 10.2.1(f) keeps "Pennsylvania" as full in their example, but I'm not keen on relying on an indirect rule.
Re: Bluebook 10.2.2 Ambiguity?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:56 am
by FeelTheHeat
I wonder if the honor code for the write-on competition is also ambiguous.
Re: Bluebook 10.2.2 Ambiguity?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 9:57 am
by IAFG
FeelTheHeat wrote:I wonder if the honor code for the write-on competition is also ambiguous.
lol
i hate everything about this thread
Re: Bluebook 10.2.2 Ambiguity?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 10:03 am
by GertrudePerkins
Keep it "California," don't abbreviate to "Cal." Think of it this way: first follow the rule in 10.2.1(f), which leaves the name of the party as simply "California"; then follow 10.2.2, which tells you not to abbreviate a geographical unit when it's the entire name of the party.
General practice tip: if you're unsure how to apply some Bluebook rule, go on Westlaw and see how the Harvard Law Review does it. They're the ones who write the Bluebook. In this instance, you could check how they've cited the famous greenhouse gas case: sure enough, they call it "Massachusetts v. EPA," not "Mass. v. EPA."
ETA: Didn't consider that you might be asking for this info in connection to a write-on competition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not violating any rules. If you are, you suck and are especially lame for cheating on such an easy issue.
Re: Bluebook 10.2.2 Ambiguity?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 10:29 am
by alphaparrot
OL (sorta) here, so I'm not doing the write-on yet. I'm doing a dual degree with an MPP and writing an article (hopefully for a journal in the fall). I was told that I have a much better chance of getting accepted if I already have the citations in good order.
Re: Bluebook 10.2.2 Ambiguity?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 4:54 pm
by NotMyRealName09
Jesus christ people it's the fucking internet.