Obscure blue-booking question Forum

[kykiske]

Is it acceptable to "supra" a source you used an "id." for?

So for example let's say:

Footnote 34. Id.

Footnote 45. Supra note 34.

[dowu]

Is it acceptable to "supra" a source you used an "id." for?

So for example let's say:

Footnote 34. Id.

Footnote 45. Supra note 34.

Lol what? I'm no law student but that does not seem right. Why can't you just use id. again?

[kalvano]

You can't use id until you cite the original source. So just use supra on the footnote in which you cited the original source.

[dowu]

You can't use id until you cite the original source. So just use supra on the footnote in which you cited the original source.

Well, obviously.

[Rotor]

Is it acceptable to "supra" a source you used an "id." for?

So for example let's say:

Footnote 34. Id.

Footnote 45. Supra note 34.

I agree with Kalvano if you're just citing to the source (which is what your question asks).

However, if you are using it as an internal cross reference ("See supra note 34 and accompanying text.") it would be OK.

[swimmer11]

Is it acceptable to "supra" a source you used an "id." for?

So for example let's say:

Footnote 34. Id.

Footnote 45. Supra note 34.

I agree with Kalvano if you're just citing to the source (which is what your question asks).

However, if you are using it as an internal cross reference ("See supra note 34 and accompanying text.") it would be OK.

[Scotusnerd]

Why would you have your reader go through recursive footnotes? Just cite the supra to the original source.

[mr.hands]

Why would you have your reader go through recursive footnotes? Just cite the supra to the original source.

This.

Also, id is usually for cases/statutes. Supra is for secondary sources, mostly law review articles. Thus, using "supra" to an "Id" wouldn't make sense

[guano]

Why would you make a reader go to footnote 34 and then to 33? (or wherever the original citation is).