ICW Mistake? Forum

[Drummingreg]

On ICW 18a #8 I think the answer is wrong. Bolded is where the issue is. Wow, what is my life?

Southern California Edison Company versus Public Utilities Commission, a case decided by the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, on December 29, 2000, and reported at volume 85, page 1086, of California Appellate Reports, Fourth Series.

My Answer: S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).

"Correct" Citation: S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1086 (Ct. App. 2000).

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't think the "Cal." you included is necessary because "85 Cal. App. 4th" already makes clear what state you're referring to - when you cite a state reporter, I don't think you have to put the state in the court name.

[LeDique]

IMO per 10.4 you are both wrong and its: S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1086 (2000).

but I'm too lazy to look if Cal has two intermediate court of appeals. If they do, then it's what they have for the reason Nony mentioned.

[LeDique]

Actually now that I've thought about it, Cal. App. could probably refer to either the intermediate appellate court or the supreme court, so its ambiguous as to which court is it. Thus, you don't need the state, but you do need the court.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, if the reporter for both courts is Cal. App., that's how it would work. But I hate citing state reporters, they're a huge pain in the ass. (Plenty of states do what you're thinking of, and make clear in the state reporter cite whether it's the highest or intermediate court. California is just confusing.)

[Drummingreg]

Ah, thanks. For some reason I thought you only removed the state designation if it was the highest court.