Two Style Questions Forum

[ballouttacontrol]

1. Possessive of Case Name - you do not italicize the apostrophe s right?
For ex, Hobby Lobby's holding . . . .
Also, there is no issue with using a case name in this way right?

2. Ordinal in case name
I found the Bluebook unclear what to do in a situation such as this.
For example, citation clause: "First Nat'l Bank of Franklin Square v. People, 347 U.S. 373 (1954).
It doesn't seem right to me hat the First be abbreviated to "1st," but it looks like according to the rule on ordinals it should be. . . .?

Any guidance appreciated.

I'm a 3L, and this is for use in my own article. Thanks for help!

[encore1101]

1. That is correct. You would not italicize the apostrophe. I generally refrain from writing a possessive of a case name, if it can be avoided, and attribute it to the court instead (although, that's not ideal either). "In Hobby Lobby, the Court held that . . ." or "[something] cannot be reconciled with the Court's holding in Hobby Lobby."


2. No, it should not be abbreviated to an ordinal.

[ballouttacontrol]

Thanks bud.

I agree with you on your point in 1. I am using it a case name as the name for a standard discussed a bunch, and it just really seemed to get overly cumbersome in a few spots where it would result in X of Y of Z. Thanks for the input

[BVest]

www.top-law-schools.com.org