Citation signal

‹The template How-to is being considered for merging.›

Legal citation

Introductory signals are used in legal citations to present authorities and show how the authorities relate to propositions in textual statements. Introductory signals do not carry identical meaning across modern U.S. style systems. The three most prominent citation manuals are The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation [1] and the ALWD Citation Manual [2]and The Maroonbook [3]. Some state-specific style manuals also provide guidance on legal citation. The Bluebook citation system is both the most comprehensive and most widely used system by courts, law firms, and law reviews.

Introductory signals

Introductory signals are used in legal citations to present authorities and show how the authorities relate to propositions in textual statements.

A legal writer uses an introductory signal to tell readers how her citation to legal authority supports, or does not support, her written proposition. Introductory signals organize the writer's citations into a hierarchy of strength and importance so that the reader can quickly determine the relative weight of the citation. For example, the introductory signal "See" tells the reader that the citation clearly supports the writer's proposition, while "But see" tells the reader that the citation clearly contradicts the writer's proposition.

Introductory signals do not carry identical meaning across modern U.S. style systems. The three most prominent citation manuals are The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation [4] and the ALWD Citation Manual [5]and The Maroonbook [6]. Some state-specific style manuals also provide guidance on legal citation. The Bluebook citation system is both the most comprehensive and most widely used system by courts, law firms, and law reviews. Here is an explanation, with examples, of the introductory signals used in legal writing under the Bluebook system:

Signals That Indicate Support

[no signal]

Cited authority directly states the proposition, identifies the source of a quotation, or identifies an authority referred to in the text.

Example: We have consistently applied that presumption to language in the ADEA that was "derived in haec verba from Title VII." Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584, 55 L. Ed. 2d 40, 98 S. Ct. 866 (1978).

Example: The Court normally does accord "special deference" to state highway safety regulations. [Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429 (1976)]

E.g.

This signal, an abbreviation of the latin phrase "exempli gratia," means "for example." It tells the reader that what the writer is citing directly supports the proposition but there are other authorities which also support the proposition. This introductory signal may be used in combination with other signals, preceded by a comma. Note: the comma after e.g., is not italicized.

Example: See, e.g., Bart, Inc. v. Lisa, 222 U.S. 105, 123 (2000)(holding that arbitration agreements can be enforced); Homer v. Barney, 333 F.3d 198, 203 (3d Cir. 1922) (upholding arbitrary arbitration agreements).

Example: Because §1257, as long interpreted, vests authority to review a state court's judgment solely in this Court, e.g., Feldman, 460 U.S., at 476, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206, 103 S. Ct. 1303; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 286, 26 L. Ed. 2d 234, 90 S. Ct. 1739 (1970); Rooker, 263 U.S., at 416, 68 L. Ed. 362, 44 S. Ct. 149, the District Courts in Rooker and Feldman lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Example: This is common industry practice. E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 548 F. Supp. 1329, 1331 (E.D. Pa. 1982).

See:

“See” indicates that the cited authority clearly supports, but not directly states the proposition given. See means the writer is citing something that clearly supports what she just said; but it is slightly less direct than using [No signal]. There is an inferential step between the authority cited and the proposition it supports.

Example: See Gurney v. Lester, 888 F.2d 190, 191 (4th Cir. 1988).

Example: At this time, the AEDPA 1-year statute of limitations had run. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-182, 150 L. Ed. 2d 251, 121 S. Ct. 2120 (2001) (holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of a federal petition).

Example: See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Accord,

"Accord" is used when two or more sources state or support the proposition, but the text quotes or refers to only one; the other sources are then introduced by "accord." In other words, accord means “I just cited something that supports my proposition, and now here’s another thing that supports it too.” The law of one jurisdiction may be cited as being in accord with the law of another.

Example: “[N]ervousness alone does not justify extended detention and questioning about matters not related to the stop.” United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719,725 (9th Cir. 2001); accord United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1139 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 248 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Tapia, 912 F.2d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1990).

Example: This Court has repeatedly held that "the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction." McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282, 54 L. Ed. 762, 30 S. Ct. 501 (1910); accord Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 928, 45 L. Ed. 2d 648, 95 S. Ct. 2561 (1975); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 398 U.S., at 295, 26 L. Ed. 2d 234, 90 S. Ct. 1739.

Example: Accord: Schuster v. City of New York, 286 A.D. 392, 394; Liondsey v. New York Telephone Company, 405 U.S. 66, 89; Toher v. Pollak, 44 N.Y. 2d 613; Chapman v. Houston Welfare, 441 U.S. 613; United States v. New York Telephone, 442 U.S. 176.

See also:

This indicates that the cited authority constitutes additional material that supports the proposition. The cited authority supports the proposition with which the citation is associated, but less directly than that indicated by "see" or "accord." "See also" is sometimes used to refer readers to authorities already cited or discussed. It is most useful when followed by a parenthetical explanation of the source material's relevance.

Example: "... omitting the same mental element in a similar weapons possession statute, such as RCW 9.41.040, strongly indicates that the omission was purposeful and that strict liability was intended. See generally State v. Alvarez, 74 Wash.App. 250, 260, 872 P.2d 1123 (1994) (omission of “course of conduct” language in criminal counterpart to civil antiharassment act indicated “ Legislature consciously chose to criminalize a single act rather than a course of conduct.”) aff'd, 128 Wash.2d 1, 904 P.2d 754 (1995); see also State v. Roberts, 117 Wash.2d 576, 586, 817 P.2d 855 (1991) (use of certain statutory language in one instance, and different language in another, evinces different legislative intent) (citing cases)."

Source: State v. Anderson, 141 Wash.2d 357, 5 P.3d 1247, 1253 (2000).

Example: See also Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 784, n. 21, 104 L. Ed. 2d 835, 109 S. Ct. 2180 (1989) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (it would be anomalous to allow courts to sit in review of judgments entered by courts of equal, or greater, authority (citing Rooker and Feldman)).

Example: See also Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1339 (C.A.Fed.2005) (“[S]oftware code ... drives the functional nucleus of the finished computer product.” (quoting Imagexpo, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 299 F.Supp.2d 550, 553 (E.D.Va.2003))).

See generally:

This signal indicates to the reader that the cited authority presents helpful background material related to the proposition. The use of parenthetical explanations of the source material's relevance following each authority introduced by 'see generally' is encouraged.

Example: See generally Gonzalez v. Whitney & Rainey, 288 S.W. 45, 48 (Tex. 1972).

Example: It is a form of "discrimination" because the complainant is being subjected to differential treatment. See generally Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581, 614, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540, 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (the "normal definition of discrimination" is "differential treatment")

Example: See generally Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245-249, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936); Schlesinger, supra, at 67-84.

Cf.:

This signals (for the Latin confer, meaning "compare") that the cited authority states a proposition different from that stated by the person citing to the authority, but that the cited authority's proposition is sufficiently analogous to lend support. Writers use this signal when the cited authority doesn’t exactly support what they just said, but it’s close enough to lend support. An explanatory parenthetical is strongly recommended.

Example: Cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 183 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Example: Cf. Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940.

Example: Cf. Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc., 375 F.3d 1113, 1117-1119 (C.A.Fed.2004)(transmission abroad of instructions for production of patented computer chips not covered by § 271(f)).

Example: The question of mootness is itself a question of constitutional law ( Cf. Linery v. Jafco. Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 304 et seq., Davis v. Wechasler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Matter of Rosenbluth v. Finkelstein, 300 N.Y. 402 at 404.

Signals that indicate contradiction

Contra:

This signals that the cited authority directly contradicts a given point: opposition.

Example: Contra Fort Myers Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 588 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Tex. 1972).

Example: "Before Blakely, courts around the country had found that "statutory minimum" was the maximum sentence allowed by law for the crime, rather than the maximum standard range sentence. See, e.g., State v. Gore, 143 Wash.2d 288, 313-14, 21 P.3d 262 (2001), overruled by State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 118, 110 P.3d 192 (2005); contra Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2536-37."

Example: Contra, ante, at 690-691.

But See, But Cf

Any of the signals may be preceded by "but" to indicate the negative of the signal's meaning. One would not use "but" by itself; one would use "contra" to show direct negative authority. The word "but" should not be used in "but see" or "but cf." if one of these signals follows another negative symbol.

Example: But cf. 481 U.S., at 25-26, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment) (Rooker-Feldman would apply because Texaco's claims necessarily called for review of the merits of its state appeal).

Example: But cf. 995 F.2d, at 1137 (observing that “[i]n the ordinary tort claim arising when a government driver negligently runs into another car, jury trial is precisely what is lost to a plaintiff when the government is substituted for the employee”).

Example: "Specifically, under Roberts, there may have been cases in which courts erroneously determined that testimonial statements were reliable. But see 418 F.3d at 1058 (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)."

Example:• But see 418 F.3d, at 1058 (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (observing that it is unlikely that this occurred “in anything but the exceptional case”).

Signal that indicates a useful comparison

Compare _____ with _________

While not precise as to the degree of support the citation gives to the proposition, this form is very useful in a number of circumstances, where the comparison of two or more sources may give illumination to a proposition that is otherwise difficult to show. Either "compare" or "with" may be followed by more than one source, using "and" between each of them. In legal practice, the writer italicizes "and". The Bluebook strongly recommends adding a parenthetical explanation after each authority.

Example: Compare In re Estate of Longeway, 133 Ill.2d 33, 51, 139 Ill.Dec. 780, 788, 549 N.E.2d 292, 300 (1989) (requiring judicial approval of guardian's decision), with In re Hamlin, 102 Wash.2d 810, 818-819, 689 P.2d 1372, 1377-1378 (1984) (discussing circumstances in which judicial approval is unnecessary).

Example: 542 U.S. ___, 542 U.S. 936, 159 L. Ed. 2d 811, 124 S. Ct. 2905 (2004). Compare, e.g., Crews v. Horn, 360 F.3d 146, 152 (CA3 2004); and Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 381 (CA2 2001), with 346 F.3d 799 (2003) (case below).

Example: Compare Fobian, supra, at 1153, with In re Shangra-La, Inc., 167 F.3d 843, 848-849 (C.A.4 1999).

Signals as the verbs of textual sentences

When using a signal as a verb, the signal should not be italicized.

Example: See United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610, 615 (9th Cir. 1984), for an example of an improper Miranda warning.

Order of signals

Generally, the order of signals is as follows:

1. [no signal]

2. E.g.,

3. Accord

4. See

5. See also

6. Cf.

7. Compare... [and]... with... [and]...

8. Contra, But see, and But cf.

9. See generally

If using more than one signal in a particular citation, the signals and associated authorities should appear in the order above. Signals of the same basic type - supportive, comparative, contradictory, or background - are strung together within a single citation sentence and separated by semicolons. Signals of different types should be grouped in different citation sentences.

However, within a citation clause citation strings can contain different types of signals. These signals are separated by semicolons.

Order of authorities within each signal

(See The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation [7])

If one authority is considerably more helpful or authoritative than the others cited within a signal, it should precede others. Except in this situation, cite authorities in the order in which they are listed as follows:

(a) Constitutions and other foundational documents. Cite in the following order: 1. federal 2. state (alphabetically by state) 3. foreign (alphabetically by jurisdiction) 4. foundational documents of the United Nations, the League of Nations, and the European Union (in that order)

(b) Statutes: cite by jurisdiction, federal first, state second, and foreign third.

(c) Treaties and other international agreements: cite in reverse chronological order

(d) Cases: arrange within a signal according to the courts that issued the cited opinions; federal courts precede state courts, which precede foreign courts, and foreign courts are followed by international courts.

(e) Legislative materials

(f) Administrative and executive materials

(g) Resolutions, decisions, and regulations of intergovernmental organizations

(h) Records, briefs, and petitions

(i) Secondary materials

(j) Cross-references to the author's own material in text or footnotes

Parenthetical information

Use a parenthetical note following a citation if an explanation would be helpful to show how the citation supports the argument. The length of a parenthetical depends on the complexity of what you are trying to explain. Generally, parentheticals begin with a present participle (holding, affirming, reversing, overruling), include a direct quotation, or a combination of the two.

For example: Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988) (recognizing public-issue signs to be classic examples of free speech).

See generally Akhil Reed Amar, Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated: A Reply, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1651 (1990) (arguing that the author and the two-tier theory of federal jurisdiction are still viable).

See, e.g., Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 395, 428 F.2d 1093, 1097 (interest in health affected by decision of Secretary of Agriculture refusing to suspend registration of certain pesticides containing DDT).

See Verizon Md. Inc., 535 U.S., at 644, n. 3, 152 L. Ed. 2d 871, 122 S. Ct. 1753 ("The Rooker-Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U.S.C. §1331 [28 USCS §1331] is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see §1257(a).").

Note that the parenthetical information begins with a lowercase letter. This is an example of #2 above (use of a past participle). If the parenthetical quotes one or more full sentences, then the parenthetical should begin with a capital letter and end with punctuation.

Shorter parenthetical phrases may be used if a complete participial phrase is unnecessary given the context of the citation. For example:

The Florida Supreme court recently declared that “where the seller of a home knows facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 629 (Fla. 1985) (defective roof in three-year old home).

How do I determine whether my argument needs a parenthetical?

1. If your source directly quotes or supports your argument (meaning you either used no signal or "see" in front of your citation) then you probably do not need a parenthetical. 2. Do you have multiple arguments or points occurring in that portion of the text? If yes, then parentheticals may clarify how those sources individually contribute to the argument. 3. Are you citing to a broad or dense source? If yes, then a parenthetical that points to the correct and specific information might be helpful.

Be careful of...

1. Vague or broad parentheticals that do not add any additional value - the reader would not know anything more or less if it was not there. For example, "addresses tort reform."

2. If your citation includes additional citations of case history, the parenthetical proceeds the history.

Internal cross-references

Avoid infra, supra, op. cit, loc. cit,, and similar abbreviations that refer to citations that appear elsewhere in the writing. These forms burden readers by forcing them to hunt for the full citation elsewhere in the work.

Ex.: See, Duncan Report, supra, at 7-9

Generally, these abbreviations should be used sparingly and only (1) to avoid repeating a lengthy footnote and/or (2) to cross-reference a nearby footnote.

External links