Citation Question Forum

[Lady McDuff]

Hi,

Is it okay if I make a citation look like this (This is the first time I'll be citing to this case in my brief)?

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington demonstrates that individuals arrested even for minor offenses are subject to warrantless strip-searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).

Since it's such a long title, I thought I might be able to omit it from the citation. Right/Wrong? Thanks!

[kalvano]

Hi,

Is it okay if I make a citation look like this (This is the first time I'll be citing to this case in my brief)?

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington demonstrates that individuals arrested even for minor offenses are subject to warrantless strip-searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).

Since it's such a long title, I thought I might be able to omit it from the citation. Right/Wrong? Thanks!

No, its not OK. Citation format is standard, and the Bluebook has an index for a reason. Use it, it's better to learn that than to rely on TLS. The bolded - any information that is not part of the citation doesn't belong where you put it. Ever.

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (holding that individuals arrested for minor offenses can be subject to warrantless strip-searches).

I assume there is no U.S. citation yet, and I think that is correct for the title, but you may be able to omit some of the words. You'll have to check the BB for that.

[Lady McDuff]

Hi,

Is it okay if I make a citation look like this (This is the first time I'll be citing to this case in my brief)?

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington demonstrates that individuals arrested even for minor offenses are subject to warrantless strip-searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).

Since it's such a long title, I thought I might be able to omit it from the citation. Right/Wrong? Thanks!

No, its not OK. Citation format is standard, and the Bluebook has an index for a reason. Use it, it's better to learn that than to rely on TLS. The bolded - any information that is not part of the citation doesn't belong where you put it. Ever.

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (holding that individuals arrested for minor offenses can be subject to warrantless strip-searches).

I assume there is no U.S. citation yet, and I think that is correct for the title, but you may be able to omit some of the words. You'll have to check the BB for that.

Thanks, Kalvano! I just checked and realized that I should omit the word the.

Does anyone else have any input? I've read some sample briefs from my professor and some of them omit the title if it was mentioned in the preceding sentence.

[guano]

I did not crack open my bluebook at all during my time in law school, so don't put too much credence in this, but if you cited a case before and are citing it again you can short cite as Florence 132 S. Ct. at 1515 (or whatever page number the cite is from).
If you did not cite another case in between you can make it even shorter Id. at 1515

[Lady McDuff]

I did not crack open my bluebook at all during my time in law school, so don't put too much credence in this, but if you cited a case before and are citing it again you can short cite as Florence 132 S. Ct. at 1515 (or whatever page number the cite is from).
If you did not cite another case in between you can make it even shorter Id. at 1515

Thanks, Guano! I did know that, but since it's the first time I'm citing, I don't think it applies here.

Here's another one: if it's the second or third time I'm citing to the source, but another source has been cited to since, do I have to use the full cite form, or can I use the following? -

Florence, 132 S. Ct. at 1517.

(FYI, Kalvano - you were correct. This case was not available in the traditional reporter for US Supreme Court cases).

[guano]

I did not crack open my bluebook at all during my time in law school, so don't put too much credence in this, but if you cited a case before and are citing it again you can short cite as Florence 132 S. Ct. at 1515 (or whatever page number the cite is from).
If you did not cite another case in between you can make it even shorter Id. at 1515

Thanks, Guano! I did know that, but since it's the first time I'm citing, I don't think it applies here.

Here's another one: if it's the second or third time I'm citing to the source, but another source has been cited to since, do I have to use the full cite form, or can I use the following? -

Florence, 132 S. Ct. at 1517.

(FYI, Kalvano - you were correct. This case was not available in the traditional reporter for US Supreme Court cases).

I must have misinterpreted your second question, as I thought you were asking about citing a second time. Per my understanding and example (which missed a comma), you are correct (especially as you caught the comma I missed)

But please keep in mind that I never cracked open the bluebook, so I really don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about

[A. Nony Mouse]

Hi,

Is it okay if I make a citation look like this (This is the first time I'll be citing to this case in my brief)?

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington demonstrates that individuals arrested even for minor offenses are subject to warrantless strip-searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).

Since it's such a long title, I thought I might be able to omit it from the citation. Right/Wrong? Thanks!

No, its not OK. Citation format is standard, and the Bluebook has an index for a reason. Use it, it's better to learn that than to rely on TLS. The bolded - any information that is not part of the citation doesn't belong where you put it. Ever.

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (holding that individuals arrested for minor offenses can be subject to warrantless strip-searches).

I assume there is no U.S. citation yet, and I think that is correct for the title, but you may be able to omit some of the words. You'll have to check the BB for that.

Thanks, Kalvano! I just checked and realized that I should omit the word the.

Does anyone else have any input? I've read some sample briefs from my professor and some of them omit the title if it was mentioned in the preceding sentence.

I was taught that the citation as you've given it - case name in the sentence, the rest of the cite at the end of the sentence - is perfectly fine; this is what my LRW prof had us do, and it's how we cite things in the court where I currently clerk. You're using the case name as a noun (the subject) in the sentence - it's perfectly fine to say "Smith v. Doe demonstrates [whatever]. 123 U.S. 45 (2012)." you don't have to use a parenthetical after to provide that information. (Example from my 1L appellate brief: "The Supreme Court recognized this position in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, when it held that during school-sponsored expressive activity, a student’s First Amendment free speech rights are subject to school control reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. 484 U.S. 260 (1988).")

[MartinVanNostrandMD]

Hi,

Is it okay if I make a citation look like this (This is the first time I'll be citing to this case in my brief)?

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington demonstrates that individuals arrested even for minor offenses are subject to warrantless strip-searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).

Since it's such a long title, I thought I might be able to omit it from the citation. Right/Wrong? Thanks!

I'd recommend making sure that you're supposed to include "of the Cnty. of Burlington." I rarely opened the Bluebook, but I think there's a rule involving prepositional phrases in party names.

[Void]

You can't abbreviate like that when citing above the line. (Rule 10.2.1(c)). I was also taught that you are allowed to cite the case name at the beginning of a sentence and then the citation after (i.e. "In Jones v. Jones, the Supreme Court found that poop smells. 222 U.S. 846 (1968).") but I can't find a bluebook rule allowing this.

[20130312]

Rather than use the case name at all, why not just state the rule you are going for and then full cite at the end? You can talk about the case after that if you want and just use Id.

Any evidence seized as a result of an illegal search must not be used against the defendant in court. Smith v. Jones 492 U.S. 583 (1964). In Smith, [things we want to say about Smith here]. Id. at 587.

[Lady McDuff]

Rather than use the case name at all, why not just state the rule you are going for and then full cite at the end? You can talk about the case after that if you want and just use Id.

Any evidence seized as a result of an illegal search must not be used against the defendant in court. Smith v. Jones 492 U.S. 583 (1964). In Smith, [things we want to say about Smith here]. Id. at 587.

Definitely a great approach. This is a strategy I employ regularly. I wanted to try the other way to mix things up and avoid being repetitive.

[Lady McDuff]

You can't abbreviate like that when citing above the line. (Rule 10.2.1(c)). I was also taught that you are allowed to cite the case name at the beginning of a sentence and then the citation after (i.e. "In Jones v. Jones, the Supreme Court found that poop smells. 222 U.S. 846 (1968).") but I can't find a bluebook rule allowing this.

Void, I'm not sure what above the line means. Would you please articulate? Thanks!

[20130312]

Yeah, I totally understand the urge, but legal writing (even "good" writing) is repetitive by nature. I try to avoid creativity completely in my writing.

Also, above the line means the actual text (as opposed to a footnote).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Rather than use the case name at all, why not just state the rule you are going for and then full cite at the end? You can talk about the case after that if you want and just use Id.

Any evidence seized as a result of an illegal search must not be used against the defendant in court. Smith v. Jones 492 U.S. 583 (1964). In Smith, [things we want to say about Smith here]. Id. at 587.

Definitely a great approach. This is a strategy I employ regularly. I wanted to try the other way to mix things up and avoid being repetitive.

I also think it depends on what you're trying to do. Sometimes the point is actually to discuss a specific case in detail (for instance, if your opposing counsel is relying heavily on a case and you want to distinguish it thoroughly), in which I think the original citation is fine. If the point is just to get the rule out to apply it to the facts, then the full-cite-at-the-end is probably better.

[Void]

You can't abbreviate like that when citing above the line. (Rule 10.2.1(c)). I was also taught that you are allowed to cite the case name at the beginning of a sentence and then the citation after (i.e. "In Jones v. Jones, the Supreme Court found that poop smells. 222 U.S. 846 (1968).") but I can't find a bluebook rule allowing this.

Void, I'm not sure what above the line means. Would you please articulate? Thanks!

Sorry- it's Law Review language. But you're writing a brief so it doesn't apply anyway- what I meant is that when you're citing the name of a case as part of a sentence (as opposed to a footnote citation in an academic article), you aren't supposed to use abbreviations. Like you can't say "The Court in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. decided..." you actually have to say "The Court in Brown v. Board of Education decided..."

But disregard this because you are writing a brief.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You can't abbreviate like that when citing above the line. (Rule 10.2.1(c)). I was also taught that you are allowed to cite the case name at the beginning of a sentence and then the citation after (i.e. "In Jones v. Jones, the Supreme Court found that poop smells. 222 U.S. 846 (1968).") but I can't find a bluebook rule allowing this.

Void, I'm not sure what above the line means. Would you please articulate? Thanks!

Sorry- it's Law Review language. But you're writing a brief so it doesn't apply anyway- what I meant is that when you're citing the name of a case as part of a sentence (as opposed to a footnote citation in an academic article), you aren't supposed to use abbreviations. Like you can't say "The Court in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. decided..." you actually have to say "The Court in Brown v. Board of Education decided..."

But disregard this because you are writing a brief.

That applies in briefs, too.

[AreJay711]

What's the aversion to putting the citation after the name? The id. after isn't really going to bother anyone and the person reading you brief might appreciate seeing that right away they are dealing with a supreme court case from 2012 rather than waiting until the end of the sentence. It's a short sentence so its not that bothersome, but in general I think it's better to include the citation right after the case name. For all the reader might know, the opinion was from an intermediate appellate court from Idaho and is only mildly persuasive at best.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What's the aversion to putting the citation after the name? The id. after isn't really going to bother anyone and the person reading you brief might appreciate seeing that right away they are dealing with a supreme court case from 2012 rather than waiting until the end of the sentence. It's a short sentence so its not that bothersome, but in general I think it's better to include the citation right after the case name. For all the reader might know, the opinion was from an intermediate appellate court from Idaho and is only mildly persuasive at best.

I've seen courts use both approaches (citation after the name, and citation at the end of the sentence). Personally, I've mostly seen the court referenced in the sentence in the citation-at-the-end format (e.g. "The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Jones that [blah blah blah]. 123 US 45 (2012).").

[kalvano]

Hi,

Is it okay if I make a citation look like this (This is the first time I'll be citing to this case in my brief)?

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington demonstrates that individuals arrested even for minor offenses are subject to warrantless strip-searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012).

Since it's such a long title, I thought I might be able to omit it from the citation. Right/Wrong? Thanks!

No, its not OK. Citation format is standard, and the Bluebook has an index for a reason. Use it, it's better to learn that than to rely on TLS. The bolded - any information that is not part of the citation doesn't belong where you put it. Ever.

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the Cnty. of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (holding that individuals arrested for minor offenses can be subject to warrantless strip-searches).

I assume there is no U.S. citation yet, and I think that is correct for the title, but you may be able to omit some of the words. You'll have to check the BB for that.

Thanks, Kalvano! I just checked and realized that I should omit the word the.

Does anyone else have any input? I've read some sample briefs from my professor and some of them omit the title if it was mentioned in the preceding sentence.

I was taught that the citation as you've given it - case name in the sentence, the rest of the cite at the end of the sentence - is perfectly fine; this is what my LRW prof had us do, and it's how we cite things in the court where I currently clerk. You're using the case name as a noun (the subject) in the sentence - it's perfectly fine to say "Smith v. Doe demonstrates [whatever]. 123 U.S. 45 (2012)." you don't have to use a parenthetical after to provide that information. (Example from my 1L appellate brief: "The Supreme Court recognized this position in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, when it held that during school-sponsored expressive activity, a student’s First Amendment free speech rights are subject to school control reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. 484 U.S. 260 (1988).")

I misread the OP. I thought that was her citation, as in at the end of a sentence, not trying to use it in a sentence. My mistake. If you're talking about it in a sentence, then yeah, it's fine to put the holding as she did, but I was taught that you still have to put the full cite after the sentence, even if you mention the case name in the sentence. I think it looks awkward, though.

[AReasonableMan]

does anyone know how to bluebook a song?

[rebcca]

There is no broad-based agreement on standard citation form for this "exceedingly complex, fluid, and rapidly expanding field of source material.

[cron1834]

Ugh, why?