Top Law Schools

Question for serious bluebook/ journal nerds: Does anyone know if the BB has a rule that says you cannot use more than 5 ids in a row? I have read elsewhere that BB rule 10.9 provides this rule, but the 5 footnote rule in 10.9 seems to only refer to when you need to use a full case name in a citation; it doesn't expressly mention a 5 id limit and seems to be addressing a totally different issue.

I ask this question because I have seen many journal articles where the footnotes look like: id. id. id. id. id. short cite id. id.... and I couldn't figure out if there is a BB rule forcing people to do this, or if it's just individual journals making the stylistic choice that there should be no more than 5 consecutive Ids.

Rule 10.9(a)

Footnotes. In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise, a full citation is required. Thus, in the following example, the use of the short form in footnotes 4 and 7–8 is correct:

supersplittysplitter wrote:Question for serious bluebook/ journal nerds: Does anyone know if the BB has a rule that says you cannot use more than 5 ids in a row? I have read elsewhere that BB rule 10.9 provides this rule, but the 5 footnote rule in 10.9 seems to only refer to when you need to use a full case name in a citation; it doesn't expressly mention a 5 id limit and seems to be addressing a totally different issue.

I ask this question because I have seen many journal articles where the footnotes look like: id. id. id. id. id. short cite id. id.... and I couldn't figure out if there is a BB rule forcing people to do this, or if it's just individual journals making the stylistic choice that there should be no more than 5 consecutive Ids.

No. There is no limit on the number of id.s in a row. Also, I would not read any journal that follows that rule.

supersplittysplitter wrote:Question for serious bluebook/ journal nerds: Does anyone know if the BB has a rule that says you cannot use more than 5 ids in a row? I have read elsewhere that BB rule 10.9 provides this rule, but the 5 footnote rule in 10.9 seems to only refer to when you need to use a full case name in a citation; it doesn't expressly mention a 5 id limit and seems to be addressing a totally different issue.

I ask this question because I have seen many journal articles where the footnotes look like: id. id. id. id. id. short cite id. id.... and I couldn't figure out if there is a BB rule forcing people to do this, or if it's just individual journals making the stylistic choice that there should be no more than 5 consecutive Ids.

In law review articles you can't use short cites for cases if there isn't a citation in one of the preceding five footnotes. If it's 6 notes away, you have to recite it as a full citation. I think it's a little dumb but I'm sure there's a reason.

It is a dumb rule and there is no reason for it. It is one of the many BB rules that I (and others I work with) do not follow while brief-writing.

hlsperson1111 wrote:It is a dumb rule and there is no reason for it. It is one of the many BB rules that I (and others I work with) do not follow while brief-writing.

Good, because it isn't a rule for legal briefs, only law review articles (if memory serves..)

pancakes3 wrote:Rule 10.9(a)

Footnotes. In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise, a full citation is required. Thus, in the following example, the use of the short form in footnotes 4 and 7–8 is correct:

As I alluded to in my original post, I don't understand how the text in bold translates to a ban on 6 consecutive Ids.

If you have:
1. id.
2. id.
3. id.
4. id
5. id

Then footnote 6 can be a short form cite since the the case is clearly cited in the preceding 5 footnotes. And as this very rule acknowledges, id is a short form cite itself, so it can be used in footnote 6, right?

supersplittysplitter wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Rule 10.9(a)

Footnotes. In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise, a full citation is required. Thus, in the following example, the use of the short form in footnotes 4 and 7–8 is correct:

As I alluded to in my original post, I don't understand how the text in bold translates to a ban on 6 consecutive Ids.

If you have:
1. id.
2. id.
3. id.
4. id
5. id

Then footnote 6 can be a short form cite since the the case is clearly cited in the preceding 5 footnotes. And as this very rule acknowledges, id is a short form cite itself, so it can be used in footnote 6, right?

Where do you see the ban?

We're all telling you you're misreading the BB. Read it more carefully. You're going to be a lawyer you need to learn to parse it out.

JGMotorsport wrote:

supersplittysplitter wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Rule 10.9(a)

Footnotes. In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise, a full citation is required. Thus, in the following example, the use of the short form in footnotes 4 and 7–8 is correct:

As I alluded to in my original post, I don't understand how the text in bold translates to a ban on 6 consecutive Ids.

If you have:
1. id.
2. id.
3. id.
4. id
5. id

Then footnote 6 can be a short form cite since the the case is clearly cited in the preceding 5 footnotes. And as this very rule acknowledges, id is a short form cite itself, so it can be used in footnote 6, right?

Where do you see the ban?

We're all telling you you're misreading the BB. Read it more carefully. You're going to be a lawyer you need to learn to parse it out.

I am parsing it out. I'm saying I DO NOT see the ban. But I have nevertheless seen the ban applied in several journal articles. Hence my question.

And you're not "ALL" telling me I'm misreading the BB. The two posts right above you suggested there IS such a ban for journal articles. You're going to be a lawyer you need to learn to read more carefully.

supersplittysplitter wrote:

JGMotorsport wrote:

supersplittysplitter wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Rule 10.9(a)

Footnotes. In law review footnotes, a short form for a case may be used if it clearly identifies a case that (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise, a full citation is required. Thus, in the following example, the use of the short form in footnotes 4 and 7–8 is correct:

As I alluded to in my original post, I don't understand how the text in bold translates to a ban on 6 consecutive Ids.

If you have:
1. id.
2. id.
3. id.
4. id
5. id

Then footnote 6 can be a short form cite since the the case is clearly cited in the preceding 5 footnotes. And as this very rule acknowledges, id is a short form cite itself, so it can be used in footnote 6, right?

Where do you see the ban?

We're all telling you you're misreading the BB. Read it more carefully. You're going to be a lawyer you need to learn to parse it out.

I am parsing it out. I'm saying I DO NOT see the ban. But I have nevertheless seen the ban applied in several journal articles. Hence my question.

And you're not "ALL" telling me I'm misreading the BB. The two posts right above you suggested there IS such a ban for journal articles. You're going to be a lawyer you need to learn to read more carefully.

They don't actually at all you're not reading them carefully which is the problem.


Okay I'll make it easy. No ban. If you don't see it it's cause it's not there.

The rule has to do with this

1 x
2 a
3 a, b
4 c
5 e
6 f

In footnote 7 you would not be allowed to short cite x because it's more that's 5 footnotes preceding it. That's what the rule is saying.

This is what we are all saying.

Although, do you have an example? I'm curious now.

JGMotorsport wrote:
They don't actually at all you're not reading them carefully which is the problem.


Okay I'll make it easy. No ban. If you don't see it it's cause it's not there.

The rule has to do with this

1 x
2 a
3 a, b
4 c
5 e
6 f

In footnote 7 you would not be allowed to short cite x because it's more that's 5 footnotes preceding it. That's what the rule is saying.

This is what we are all saying.

Although, do you have an example? I'm curious now.

Thats fine and dandy but it doesn't answer OP's question. You should read more carefully.

OP is reading the BB correctly. The rule against using "id." more than 5 consecutive times is usually found in a journal's style guide; it's not a BB rule. Rule 10.9 is about citing cases--not using id. (which is found in rule 4.1).

stoopkid13 wrote:

JGMotorsport wrote:
They don't actually at all you're not reading them carefully which is the problem.


Okay I'll make it easy. No ban. If you don't see it it's cause it's not there.

The rule has to do with this

1 x
2 a
3 a, b
4 c
5 e
6 f

In footnote 7 you would not be allowed to short cite x because it's more that's 5 footnotes preceding it. That's what the rule is saying.

This is what we are all saying.

Although, do you have an example? I'm curious now.

Thats fine and dandy but it doesn't answer OP's question. You should read more carefully.

OP is reading the BB correctly. The rule against using "id." more than 5 consecutive times is usually found in a journal's style guide; it's not a BB rule. Rule 10.9 is about citing cases--not using id. (which is found in rule 4.1).

10.9 is short cite for cases #1 and #2 the question is about the BB.

10.9 mentions a five rule 4.1 one does not.

JGMotorsport wrote:

stoopkid13 wrote:

JGMotorsport wrote:
They don't actually at all you're not reading them carefully which is the problem.


Okay I'll make it easy. No ban. If you don't see it it's cause it's not there.

The rule has to do with this

1 x
2 a
3 a, b
4 c
5 e
6 f

In footnote 7 you would not be allowed to short cite x because it's more that's 5 footnotes preceding it. That's what the rule is saying.

This is what we are all saying.

Although, do you have an example? I'm curious now.

Thats fine and dandy but it doesn't answer OP's question. You should read more carefully.

OP is reading the BB correctly. The rule against using "id." more than 5 consecutive times is usually found in a journal's style guide; it's not a BB rule. Rule 10.9 is about citing cases--not using id. (which is found in rule 4.1).

10.9 is short cite for cases #1 and #2 the question is about the BB.

10.9 mentions a five rule 4.1 one does not.

That's fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that OP is reading the BB correctly. You should read more carefully.