Tag Archives: the Bluebook

Using Introductory Signals for Citations

Leave a reply

imagesContext helps define words. In a tennis score, “love” means nothing. Lawyers often say “consideration” without meaning kindness.

The same is true for “see,” “see also,” “but see,” and the other ways of introducing citations in an appeal brief. These ordinary words carry specific meanings when introducing citations. The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style (West, 2d ed. revised 2006), explains:

  • No signal - the cited authority contains the text’s quote, states the definition or proposition, or directly supports the proposition.
  • See - the cited authority implicitly supports the proposition.
  • See also - the cited authority in not mentioned in the text and provides additional supporting material
  • Cf. - the cited authority provides an analogy that indirectly supports the proposition
  • E.g. - the cited authority is one of many that similarly state or support the proposition.
  • Compare . . . with - the cited authority support the stated proposition in different ways or the authorities arrive alternative analysis and arrive at different conclusions.
  • Contra. - the cited authority directly contradicts the stated proposition.
  • But see – the cited authority implicitly contradicts or limits the proposition.
  • See generally – the cited authority provides useful background information.
  • Accord – the cited authority is not mentioned in the text and states or directly supports the proposition.

The Redbook on usage notes that the Bluebook and ALWD citation systems may differ on a signal’s precise meaning and that not all citation systems use all these signals. The point here is consistency.

by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner

by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner

Why care? Why quibble over using see or cf. or nothing at all? The book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, explains that it boils down to credibility. Without an introductory signal, you are telling the court that the cited authority holds — explicitly — what you just said. If the holding is only implicit, use the see; if only analogous, use the cf. 

 

 

Anyone else have trouble keeping “see” and “accord” straight? Please leave me a reply or reach me at www.attorneyroberthill.com.

 

 

 

10 Tips for Italics in Appeal Briefs

Leave a reply

imagesBryan A. Garner’s The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style (West, 2d Ed. revised, 2006), offers 10 tips on using italics in appeal briefs.

Italicize -

  • for emphasis (rather than underlining)
  • foreign words and phrases (that have not been anglicized)
  • a letter, word, or phrase when defining it (rather than quotation marks)
  • names of cases (rather than underlining)
  • titles of books, articles, and other publications
  • citation signals (such as see, cf.)
  • subsequent history in a case citation

Do not italicize:

  • words or phrases already within italicized matter (use roman instead)
  • punctuation marks after the italics unless it is part of the matter itself
  • when italicizing becomes overused.

Of these tips, three strike me the most. The first is using italics for emphasis. Garner suggests that italics for emphasis is best used within quoted material to show relevance to the point you are making. When writing your own words, there are other ways to highlight your point. You can use word order, strong verbs and precise nouns, and pithy quotations. Other rhetorical techniques include using repetition, parallelism, and conjunctions.

The next tip that strikes me is using italics for book titles. Garner elsewhere explains that the Bluebook and the ALWD diverge on this point. He agrees with the ALWD that book titles are italicized; the Bluebook says use large and small caps.

In South Carolina, either citation form will work. Rule 268, SCACR, suggests that we use either the Bluebook, or A Guide to South Carolina Legal Research and Citation, or any other publication. In turn, the SC Guide provides that either italics or large/small caps may be used for book titles.

Lastly, Garner joins those steeped in typography by forbidding underlining case names. Absolutely forbids it. Lawyers in South Carolina may get tripped up here because Rule 268, SCACR, underlines case names when explaining how to cite them. This is just part of the bad typography suggested in the SC appellate rules. Underlining case names is only a suggestion, however, and can give way when other publications suggest italics.

Any thoughts on using italics for emphasis? In case names? Please leave a reply or reach me at www.attorneyroberthill.com.

 

 

Citing Authorities in South Carolina

2 Replies

After the Table of Contents, discussed in the last post, comes the Table of Cases. Rule 208(b)(1), SCACR. This is a misnomer in that Table is better described as a Table of Authorities because other authorities, such as statutes, must be listed too.

In listing the authority, Rule 268, SCACR, governs how to cite the South Carolina materials. For other authority, the rule recommends A Guide to South Carolina Legal Research and Citation, and the Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation. But it allows using other citation publications too. Other publications that may be consulted include the Association of Legal Writing Directors’ competing citation manual. Professor Peter W. Martin of Cornell University has also published a free citation manual on-line.

All of these manuals stress that a citation must be complete. Completeness achieves several related goals:

  • tells the reader how to find the document
  • gives the reader alternative sources for the document, and
  • gives the reader enough information to decide if the reference is worth pursuing

Completeness further requires accuracy in identifying the court rendering the opinion. Under Rule 268, SCACR, for example, the primary difference between citing an opinion from the South Carolina Supreme Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals is that “Ct.App.” is placed before the date in the parenthetical. John v. Doe, 123 S.C. 123, 456 S.E.2d 456 (2012) is a Supreme Court case. John v. Doe, 123 S.C. 123, 456 S.E.2d 456 (Ct.App. 2012) is a Court of Appeals case. By the way, these apparent links do not work because the citations are made up.

In a federal court case where state law was at issue, I was once able to make hay from opposing counsel omitting the “Ct.App.” when citing a South Carolina case. The omission  allowed me to argue that counsel misidentified the decision as binding Supreme Court precedent when it was, in fact, a non-binding intermediate appellate court decision.

Giving a case’s subsequent history is likewise crucial. A brief that I recently read neglected to mention that a case cited was overruled on another ground. Opposing counsel quickly added the subsequent history, thus gaining credibility with the Court.

Lastly, in Tip 78 of The Winning Brief, legal writing guru Bryan Garner recommends that one learn the correct abbreviation forms for common words in case names. Formal abbreviations may be expected by the reader, and they in any event give the Table of Authorities a cleaner appearance.

Has anyone else caught opposing counsel citing an overruled case? Please let us hear from you. You may reach me at www.attorneyroberthill.com.