Give the reader credit for having a brain – and show that you have one too. Don`t leave your common sense at the door. If your brief refers repeatedly to the Minister of Transport and does not mention any other Minister of Transport, it is ridiculous to say in parentheses the first time you mention the Minister of Transport: « (hereinafter « the Secretary ») ». No one will think that your subsequent references to « Secretary of State » refer to the Secretary of Defense, or perhaps your own Secretary of Defense. Times have changed, now most readers need an explanation in parentheses after every name except Chopin`s. An online subscription version of the Bluebook was launched in 2008. [5] A mobile version was launched in 2012 in the Rulebook app, an app that allows lawyers, academics, judges, law students, paralegals, and others involved in the legal profession to reference federal and state court rules, codes, and style guides on iPad and other mobile devices. [6] Of course, legal citation in general and citation of specific cases can become much more complicated. « Commonly known as Rullochs », as a parenthetical correction or accompanying note to the words of Mr. Verdant Green.
This quote is very similar to the quote from the opinion of the Court of Justice. The two main differences are the citation of the pin, page 527 here, and the addition of the names of the dissenting judges in parentheses after the date of the case. The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation illustrates hypertrophy in an anthropological sense. It is a monstrous growth, far from the functional necessity of forms of legal citation, that serves the obscure needs of legal culture and its student subculture. [37] A contract is not a contract. In short, you don`t need to create defined short names for everyone if there is no risk of confusion for the reader. If Fred Flintstone is the only flint mentioned in the letter, call him by his full name the first time he appears – without the parenthesis « (`Flint`) ») – and then simply call him « Flintstone ». Everyone will know you`re talking about Fred. No one will be surprised if you talk about Wilma. Claims about intellectual property made by HLR Association may or may not be false.
But in any event, the tactics used by HLR`s lawyer in his dealings with Mr. Malamud and Professor Sprigman are regrettable. The Harvard Law Review claims to be an organization that promotes knowledge and access to jurisprudence. It is a revered part of Harvard Law School traditions. But these Harvard Law Review actions are about competition, not justice. [44] Generally, a correct legal quotation informs the reader of the authority of a source, the strength with which the source supports the author`s statement, its age, and other relevant information. Here is an example of a quote from a U.S. Supreme Court case: « Parenthesis. » Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parenthetical. Retrieved 5 November 2022. Where does this idiotic epistolary convention come from? It seems to come from the world of contract design. Contracts require defined terms, including definitions of the parties. Contract designers often find it useful to create a defined short form of a party`s name.
An easy way to do this is to put the defined term in quotation marks and parentheses after the party name. See Kenneth A. Adams, A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting § 1.62 (2nd edition 2008). People see this in contracts, conclude that this is the « legal » way of writing, and transfer custom to writing letters. Another dispute concerns the copyright status of The Bluebook. Proponents of open source argue that The Bluebook is not copyrighted because it is an essential part of the legal infrastructure. [41] Lawyers representing the Bluebook publishing consortium argue that « carefully selected examples, explanations and other textual records » are protected by copyright. [42] But nothing can shake a good story (or ruin your word count) like an ugly, voluminous quote. Type in the « row » parenthesis, a fairly recent addition (and one that has not yet been officially adopted by the holy grail of legal citations: The Bluebook) that helps reduce a cumbersome quote to something manageable and less boring. To illustrate, take this passage from Indiana Supreme Court Justice David Slaughter: The problem occurs with the parenthetical sentences that are now inserted into the translation.
In 2021 alone, the Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals used it at least seventeen times I can find. Obviously, the word « tidying up » is becoming more and more accepted, and I personally support anything that helps to improve the readability of legal drafting. While there is a risk that « cleaned » could be used to mischaracterize or mislead, this is true for all changes, especially parentheses and ellipses. Lawyers should be aware that judges (or their staff) can verify the original source. During court proceedings, « legal citation analysis, » the use of citation analysis techniques to analyze legal documents, facilitates a better understanding of interrelated legal compliance documents by examining citations that link provisions to other provisions in the same document or between different documents. Legal citation analysis involves the use of a citation table extracted from a regulatory document that could complement e-evidence – a process that takes advantage of technological innovations in big data analysis. [1] [2] [3] [4] Main path analysis, a method that plots the chains of meaningful quotes in a citation graph, can be used to track changes in opinion over the years for a target legal area. [5] First, the applicant must have suffered « actual harm » – interference with a legally protected interest that (a) is concrete and specific, see id., at 756, 104 p.Ct., at 3327; Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2210, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740–741, n. 16, 92 pp. 1361, 1368–1369, n. 16, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972);1 and b) « actual or imminent, not `conjectural` or `hypothetical` », Whitmore, supra, 495 U.S., at 155, 110 S.Ct., at 1723 (cited Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.
95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal link between the harm and the conduct complained of – the harm must be « proportionate ». Traceability to the defendant`s contested act and not . the result of the autonomous act of a third party who is not a party to legal proceedings. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41–42, 96 pp.
1917, 1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). Third, it must be « likely » and not merely « speculative » that the breach will be remedied « by a favourable decision ». Id., at 38, 43, 96 p.Ct., at 1924, 1926. First, the plaintiff must have actually suffered harm – interference with a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and concrete and (b) real or imminent, not presumed or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal link between the harm and the conduct complained of – the damage must be sufficiently attributable to the defendant`s impugned act and not to the result of the independent act of a third party who is not a party to the court. Third, it must be likely, and not just speculative, that the damage will be remedied by a favourable decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 p.Ct. 2130 (adjusted). The 21st edition of the Blue Book regulates the style and formatting of various references and elements of a legal publication, including: As used here in its demonstrative sense to introduce a sentence in parentheses. Regardless of how the legal profession handles the issue, Baude said the remedy doesn`t « throw a few parentheses. » The parenthesis « (cleaned) » means that the author has « removed irrelevant and insubstantial elements such as parentheses, quotation marks, ellipses, footnote reference numbers, and internal citations; may have been capitalized without using parentheses to indicate the change; and expressly states that the changes were made solely to improve readability and that the quotation accurately reflects the quoted text.
Jack Metzler, Cleaning Up Quotations, 18 y. App. Prac. & Process 143, 154 (2017).
