Bluebook Wednesday, Tips #8-12

Here is the second batch of Bluebook Wednesday tips. I'm so glad I finally found the place for my inner #bluebooknerd to help others.

For the article with Tips #1-7 go here.

Fun Fact: My law school friends still call me for citation questions.

A funny story: I once helped a friend at another firm with some citations. In reality, this friend has no clue how to cite properly. The friend's Bluebooking in law school was admittedly atrocious. As a reward for the cites being so good, the friend was given more citations to fix.

Tip #8, Short Case Cites

To see Tip #8, go here.

For all things case cites, note that you can use underlines or italics.

Structure of a Short Case Cite

There are 3 ways to structure a short case cite. For example, if your full cite is Solaris v. City of Miami, 166 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), your short cite could be any of the following:

• Solaris, 166 So. 3d at 888.
• 166 So. 3d at 888.
• Id. at 888.

Note that the geographic designation "City of Miami" is included here because it begins the party name. See Rule 10.2.1(f).

For Westlaw case cites, the short case cite is a bit different. For example, if your full cite is Yonan v. Walmart, Inc., No. 0:21-cv-61443-WPB, 2022 WL 1284285, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2022), your short cite could be any of the following:

• Yonan, 2022 WL 1284285, at *2.
• 2022 WL 1284285, at *2.
• Id. at *2.

The standard short cite form is one party's name. However, you can further shorten a party's name if the reference is unambiguous. For example:

• Full Cite: Com. P'ship 8098 Ltd. P'ship v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
• Short Cite: Com. P'ship 8098, 695 So. 2d 383.
• Short Cite: Equity Contracting Co., 695 So. 2d 383.

On the last example, note that Inc. is dropped in the short cite. Rule 10.2.1(h). Per Rule 10.2.1(h), you could also drop Inc. in the full cite.

When to Use a Short Cite

In a legal document (pleading, motion, brief, etc.), a short case cite is appropriate if the case has already been cited (i.e., full cite) at least once. But, as Kyle Robisch pointed out, there may be times where you want to repeat the full cite; and, Bluebook says that's OK (in fact, encouraged). B10.2 says:

Once you have provided a full citation to an authority, you may use a 'short form' in later citations of the same authority, so long as (1) it is clear to the reader which authority is referenced; (2) the full citation falls in the same general discussion; and (3) the reader will have little trouble locating the full citation.

So, you are perfectly fine to reuse the full cite and are actually correct in doing so because you're making sure the reader does not have trouble locating the full cite.

In a law review article, a short case cite is appropriate if the case has already been cited in at least one of the preceding 5 footnotes. Rule 10.9.

Id.

Id. is used where you are citing to the source cited in the immediately preceding cite.

Id. is capitalized if it's the beginning of a citation sentence.

Do not use a comma after id. and before "at."

The period after id. is italicized (or underlined).

Rule of 5 (Rule 10.9(a))

This Rule generally applies to law review articles because it applies when you're using footnotes. This Rule means that you need a new full cite if the case has not been cited in any form in the preceding 5 footnotes. Id. counts.

You can have more than 5 id.'s in a row.

Tip #9, Parentheticals

To see Tip #9, go here.

There was a lot with this one. Thanks to the new format, I was able to include it all without writing a post that looked like a novel.

Parentheticals are a way to add information to your citation. For instance, you can use a parenthetical to:

• Explain the relevance of your cite to your writing;
• Add a quote from the source;
• Indicate you've emphasized something in a direct quote;
• Indicate you've removed a citation from a direct quote; or
• Indicate you've omitted a footnote from a direct quote.

The list goes on.

(alteration in original)

This parenthetical is used when your direct quote has an alteration (brackets, ellipses, etc.) that appeared in the source.

NOTE: This is not used to indicate emphasis that appears in the source.

Improper Parenthetical: Per a prior Bluebook Wednesday discussion, note that "(alteration in original)" is proper, but "(emphasis in original)" is not. Rule 5.2(d)(iii) states: "Do not indicate that emphasis in the quotation appears in the original." Thank you to Leah Tedford for suggesting that I include this. And, thank you to Patrick Hagen for the historical note that this is an update since the 18th edition, in which "(emphasis in original)" was allowed.

(emphasis added)

This parenthetical is used when you add emphasis to a direct quote that did not appear in the source.

(footnote omitted)

This parenthetical is used when you omit a footnote or footnotes from quoted material. This is not used when a footnote appears at the end of quoted material that is not included. For example:

• "The pencil is sharp.* I sharpened it myself."
• "The pencil is sharp. I sharpened it myself.*"

You would only use "(footnote omitted)" to omit the asterisk footnote in the first example. See Rule 5.2(d)(ii).

(citation omitted)

Similar to "(footnote omitted)," this parenthetical is used when you omit cite(s) from quoted material. This is not used when a cite appears at the end of quoted material that is not included. In that instance, you would use the "(citing)" parenthetical. See Rule 5.2(d)(ii).

As Jonathan Graham taught us, we also use this parenthetical to indicate when a quoted source is omitted per Rule B5.1. To use Jonathan's example:

• Original: "Here is a sentence that 'quotes another source.' " Cited v. Case, 123 F. 3d 456, 457 (1992) (quoting Quoted v. Case, 321 F. 2d 654, 656 (1990)).
• Citation omitted: "Here is a sentence that 'quotes another source.' " Cited v. Case, 123 F. 3d 456, 457 (1992) (citation omitted).

This also brought up an interesting point by Leah Tedford about the use of "(quotation marks omitted)." I have used that parenthetical to indicate when internal quotation marks have been omitted; for example, to build off of the example above:

• "Here is a sentence that quotes another source." Cited v. Case, 123 F. 3d 456, 457 (1992) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, I do not see that included in Bluebook. Rather, under Rule 5.2(f), the only time you can omit quotation marks is when they encompass the full quote.

(quoting)

This parenthetical is used when the source quotes another source. (See the original form of the example above.) Use the same format you otherwise would for the citation to the quoted source. Rule 5.2(e).

(citing)

Similar to "(quoting)," this parenthetical is used to show when the source cites another source. Use the same format you otherwise would for the citation to the quoted source. Rule 5.2(e).

(explanation)

One of the most common uses for parentheticals is to add explanatory information to the citation. Rule 1.5(a).

The most common way this is done is to begin your parenthetical with a present participle phrase (i.e., a phrase starting with a verb ending in -ing). These phrases do not start with a capital letter. Rule 1.5(a)(i). Example: (affirming the trial court's final judgment)

You can also include a direct quote in the parenthetical, either a full sentence or incomplete sentence. All of the rules for direct quotes still apply. Rule 1.5(a)(ii); see Tips #4-7.

Order of Parentheticals

Rule 1.2(b) shows the correct order of parentheticals. The parentheticals in this article are in the proper order.

Tip #10, Order of Authorities

To see Tip #10, go here.

The first Bluebook Alert: Order of Authorities are now in your discretion.

This one really threw me for a loop. I'm still working on accepting it. Some of you, especially the veterans, were supportive of the change and suggested this just brings Bluebook in line with what you do anyway.

For others like Patrick Hagen and me, we are not sure how to function in this lawless world.

Of course, as Leah Tedford pointed out, gone are the days that we can show our Bluebook prowess by redlining someone's string-cites to fix the order of authorities. But we wonder if this makes it more difficult for clerks...

As to how this changes things, a few thoughts:

• You no longer have to cede to higher courts if your best case is an intermediate court.
• You no longer have to put newest cases first if an older case is your best cite.

Tips #11-12, Introductory Signals

This one felt appropriate following the discussion about "But see" on Jeffrey A. Shooman 's post.

Introductory Signals are in Rule 1.2. They can be used in citations for any type of source to add context to the relationship between your proposition and the cited authority.

Each of the signals are listed and explained below in the same order as they appear in Rule 1.2, which is the order in which they would appear in a citation. There is a divider between each of the categories.

To see Tip #11, go here.

To see Tip #12, go here.

No Signal

A cite does not need an introductory signal when it directly supports the proposition. Ergo, you do not need an introductory signal when citing a direct quote.

E.g., (Rule 1.2(a))

E.g., means "for example," just as it does in other writing. Use this signal where the cite is one of many that stand for the proposition.

It can be used on its own or added to other signals.

Example: Proposition. See, e.g., Cite v. Case, 123 So. 3d 456 (Ct. 2022).

Remember from Tip #3 that the comma before e.g., is italicized. The comma afterward is not.

Accord

This is used when the cite is a direct quote but you're adding another source in a string-cite.

Example: The "overarching subject" of the test in Rule 702 is "the evidentiary relevance and reliability." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993); accord Fed. R. Evid. 702.

See

See is probably the most popular (and overused). It is used when the cited authority supports the proposition but doesn't directly state it. There is some sort of inference.

See also

See also is used as a follow-up to see. There is a bit more inference between the proposition and the source then just see.

Example: The expert testimony is admissible because it helps the factfinder. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993).

Cf.

This is Leah Tedford 's favorite. It is used when the cited authority is comparable to the proposition but needs some explanation.

I find that this one is useful when citing an analogous case.

Example: The Complaint should be dismissed. Cf. Case v. Cite, 123 So. 3d 456 (Court 2022) (dismissing the plaintiff's claims in similar circumstances).

Compare, with

This one wasn't in the Tip as posted. A bonus for reading the article!

This citation form is used when you're comparing two sources. So the meaning is similar to Cf., but you're comparing two authorities rather than your proposition and the source. You separate the cites and signals with a comma.

Example: The Complaint omits certain language from the contract. Compare Compl., at 4, with Contract, at 8.

Contra

Contra is used to cite a source that states the proposition directly contrary to yours. Note that Bluebook says you use this where no signal would be used for support.

Example: The light was red. Case A v. Cite A, 123 So. 3d 456 (Court 2022). Contra Case X v. City Y, 789 So. 3d 123 (Court 2022) (stating the light was green).

But see

But see is used to show contradiction, but there's a level of inference required.

Example: The sky is blue. But see Case v. Cite, 123 So. 3d 456 (Court 2022) (stating that the sky is gray).

Pro Tip: While it is not in the Bluebook, it is advisable to use a parenthetical with this one.

But cf.

This one wasn't in the Tip as posted. Another bonus for reading the article! This is used when the cited source is analogous to the opposite of your proposition.

Bluebook highly recommends using a parenthetical with this one.

Example: City A is one of the safest in the country. But cf. Author, Article (2022) (stating that City B, which is similar to City A, is one of the most dangerous).

See generally

See generally is used when you're referencing the entire source. Bluebook recommends using a parenthetical for this one.

Example: There is a uniform method for citations that everyone should love. See generally The Bluebook (21st ed. 2020) (setting forth the rules for a uniform method of citation).*

I use this one often when writing law review articles to reference other articles and summarize the argument made in the cited article.

*Yes, I know that's not the correct cite to The Bluebook, but it's close.

Analyzing the Signals

Question: What is the difference between See and Cf.?

Answer: The difference is how the source supports your proposition. Use See when the source supports your proposition but requires you to draw an inference from the source. Use Cf. when your proposition is analogous to the proposition in the source. This of it as "compare."

Example: Consider your proposition is that the court should grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. This cite supports your proposition by providing the standard for summary judgment, but there's a level of inference because the Rule doesn't directly support your statement that summary judgment is proper in this circumstance.

Cf. Case v. Cite, 123 So. 3d 456 (Court 2022) (affirming the trial court's final summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff where Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law). This cite is using another case as a comparison to your case to support your proposition.

Credit to Jonathan Graham for help with this answer.

Question: What is the difference between But see and Contra?

Answer: On these two, the difference is the level of inference required. For But see, some inference is required to reach the contrary to the proposition stated. For Contra, the cited authority directly states the opposite of the proposition stated.

Example: Consider your proposition is "City A is one of the most dangerous cities in North America."

But see Author, Article A (2022) (suggesting that crime in City A is lower than ever before).

Contra Author, Article B (2022) (stating City A is one of the safest cities in the country).

Signal Categories

Rule 1.2 categorizes the introductory signals. Signals stay together with other signals in their category.

To combine citations in the same category, use a semicolon. Signals in the same category should generally appear in the same order as they appear in Rule 1.2.

Signals in different categories go in different citations sentences. (Rule 1.3)

Example: See Case A v. Cite, 123 So. 3d 456 (Court 2022); see also Case B v. Cite, 789 F. Supp. 3d 123 (Court 2022). But see Case C v. Cite, 456 So. 2d 789 (Court 2021).

See and See also are in the same category, so they go in a string-cite. But see is in a different category, so it goes in a new sentence.

Follow along for more Bluebook fun!

Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to cover in a future Bluebook Wednesday post!