b'\x0cIntroduction to\n\nBASIC LEGAL CITATION\nPETER W. MARTIN\n\n\xc2\xa9 2013 by Peter W. Martin\n\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPREFACE\n\xc2\xa7 1-000. BASIC LEGAL CITATION: WHAT AND WHY?\no \xc2\xa7 1-100. Introduction\no \xc2\xa7 1-200. Purposes of Legal Citation\no \xc2\xa7 1-300. Types of Citation Principles\no \xc2\xa7 1-400. Levels of Mastery\no \xc2\xa7 1-500. Citation in Transition\no \xc2\xa7 1-600. Who Sets Citation Norms\n\xc2\xa7 2-000. HOW TO CITE ...\no \xc2\xa7 2-100. Electronic Sources\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-110. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Core Elements\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-115. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-120. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no \xc2\xa7 2-200. Judicial Opinions\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-210. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-215. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-220. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-225. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 More Points of Difference in Citation\nPractice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-230. Medium-Neutral Case Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-240. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-250. Citing Unpublished Cases\no \xc2\xa7 2-300. Constitutions, Statutes, and Similar Materials\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-310. Constitution Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-320. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-330. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-335. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-340. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 Session Laws\n\xef\x82\xa7 Bills\n\xef\x82\xa7 Named Statutes\n\xef\x82\xa7 Internal Revenue Code\n\xef\x82\xa7 Uniform Acts and Model Codes\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-350. Local Ordinance Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-360. Treaty Citations\no \xc2\xa7 2-400. Agency and Executive Material\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-410. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-415. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation\nPractice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-420. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-450. Agency Adjudication Citations\n\ni\n\n\x0c\xef\x82\xa7\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-455. Agency Adjudication Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in\nCitation Practice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-470. Agency Report Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-480. Executive Orders and Proclamations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-485. Executive Orders and Proclamations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in\nCitation Practice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-490. Citations to Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions \xe2\x80\x93\nMost Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-495. Citations to Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions \xe2\x80\x93\nPoints of Difference in Citation Practice\no \xc2\xa7 2-500. Arbitration Decisions\no \xc2\xa7 2-600. Court Rules\no \xc2\xa7 2-700. Books\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-710. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-715. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-720. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 Institutional Authors\n\xef\x82\xa7 Services\n\xef\x82\xa7 Restatements\n\xef\x82\xa7 Annotations\no \xc2\xa7 2-800. Articles and Other Law Journal Writing\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-810. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-820. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 Student Writing by a Named Student\n\xef\x82\xa7 Unsigned Student Writing\n\xef\x82\xa7 Book Reviews\n\xef\x82\xa7 Symposia and the Like\n\xef\x82\xa7 Tributes, Dedications and Other Specially Labeled Articles\n\xef\x82\xa7 Articles in Journals with Separate Pagination in Each Issue\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 2-825. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation\nPractice\no \xc2\xa7 2-900. Documents from Earlier Stages of the Same Case\n\xc2\xa7 3-000. EXAMPLES \xe2\x80\x93 CITATIONS OF ...\no \xc2\xa7 3-100. Electronic Sources\no \xc2\xa7 3-200. Judicial Opinions\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-210. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 Federal\n\xef\x82\xa7 State\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-220. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-230. Medium-Neutral Case Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-240. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items\no \xc2\xa7 3-300. Constitutions, Statutes, and Similar Materials\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-310. Constitutions\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-320. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-340. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 Session Laws\n\nii\n\n\x0c\xef\x82\xa7\n\xef\x82\xa7\n\xef\x82\xa7\n\xef\x82\xa7\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBills\nNamed Statutes\nInternal Revenue Code\nUniform Acts and Model Codes\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-350. Local Ordinance Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-360. Treaty Citations\no \xc2\xa7 3-400. Regulations, Other Agency and Executive Material\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-410. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-420. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-450. Agency Adjudication Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-470. Agency Report Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-480. Citations to Executive Orders and Proclamations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-490. Citations to Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions\no \xc2\xa7 3-500. Arbitration Decisions\no \xc2\xa7 3-600. Court Rules\no \xc2\xa7 3-700. Books\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-710. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-720. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 Institutional Authors\n\xef\x82\xa7 Services\n\xef\x82\xa7 Restatements\n\xef\x82\xa7 Annotations\no \xc2\xa7 3-800. Articles and Other Law Journal Writing\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-810. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 3-820. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 Student Writing by a Named Student\n\xef\x82\xa7 Unsigned Student Writing\n\xef\x82\xa7 Book Reviews\n\xef\x82\xa7 Symposia and the Like\n\xc2\xa7 4-000. ABBREVIATIONS AND OMISSIONS USED IN CITATIONS\no \xc2\xa7 4-100. Words in Case Names\no \xc2\xa7 4-200. Case Histories\no \xc2\xa7 4-300. Omissions in Case Names\no \xc2\xa7 4-400. Reporters and Courts\no \xc2\xa7 4-500. States\no \xc2\xa7 4-600. Months\no \xc2\xa7 4-700. Journals\no \xc2\xa7 4-800. Spacing and Periods\no \xc2\xa7 4-900. Documents from Earlier Stages of a Case\n\xc2\xa7 5-000. UNDERLINING AND ITALICS\no \xc2\xa7 5-100. In Citations\no \xc2\xa7 5-200. In Text\no \xc2\xa7 5-300. Citation Items Not Italicized\n\xc2\xa7 6-000. PLACING CITATIONS IN CONTEXT\no \xc2\xa7 6-100. Quoting\no \xc2\xa7 6-200. Citations and Related Text\n\niii\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 6-300. Signals\n\xc2\xa7 6-400. Order\n\xc2\xa7 6-500. Short Form Citations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 6-520. Short Form Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Cases\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 6-530. Short Form Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Constitutions and Statutes\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 6-540. Short Form Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Regulations\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 6-550. Short Form Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Books\n\xef\x82\xa7 \xc2\xa7 6-560. Short Form Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Journal Articles\no \xc2\xa7 6-600. Context Examples\n\xc2\xa7 7-000. REFERENCE TABLES\no \xc2\xa7 7-100. Introduction\no \xc2\xa7 7-200. Significant Changes in The Bluebook\no \xc2\xa7 7-300. Cross Reference Table: The Bluebook\no \xc2\xa7 7-400. Cross Reference Table: ALWD Manual\no \xc2\xa7 7-500. Table of State-Specific Norms and Practices\nTOPICAL INDEX\no\no\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\niv\n\n\x0cPREFACE\n\nContents | Index\n\nThis electronic publication was conceived in the summer of 1992. A small band of Cornell\nLaw students, charged with identifying subjects on which computer-based materials would be\nparticularly helpful, placed citation at the top of the list. With their assistance I prepared the\nfirst edition of Introduction to Basic Legal Citation. It was released on diskette that fall, one\nof the first hypertext publications of Cornell\'s Legal Information Institute (LII). Later\nreconfigured for the Web, where it still resides at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/, the\nwork has been updated regularly in the years since. Like that online version on which it is\nbased, this e-book was most recently revised in the fall of 2013. As has been true of all\neditions released since 2010, it is indexed to the fourth edition of the ALWD Citation Manual\nand the nineteenth edition of The Bluebook. But it also rests firmly on the evolving practice of\njudges writing opinions and lawyers writing briefs.\nA Few Tips on Using Introduction to Basic Legal Citation\nThis is not a comprehensive citation reference work. Its limited aim is to serve as a tutorial on\nhow to cite the most widely referenced types of U.S. legal material, taking account of local\nnorms and the changes in citation practice forced by the shift from print to electronic sources.\nIt begins with an introductory unit. That is followed immediately by one on "how to cite" the\ncategories of authority that comprise a majority of the citations in briefs and legal\nmemoranda. Using the full table of contents one can proceed through this material in\nsequence. The third unit, organized around illustrative examples, is intended to be used either\nfor review and reinforcement of the prior "how to" sections or as an alternative approach to\nthem. One can start with it since the illustrative examples for each document type are linked\nback to the relevant "how to" principles.\nThe sections on abbreviations and omissions, on typeface (italics and underlining), and on\nhow citations fit into the larger project of legal writing that follow all support the preceding\nunits. They are accessible independently and also, where appropriate, via links from the\nearlier sections. Finally, there are a series of cross reference tables tying this introduction to\nthe two major legal citation reference works and to state-specific citation rules and practices.\nThe work is also designed to be used by those confronting a specific citation issue. For such\npurposes the table of contents provides one path to the relevant material. Another path, to\nwhich the bar at the top of each major section provides ready access, is a topical index. This\nindex is alphabetically arrayed and more detailed than the table of contents. Finally, the\nsearch function in your e-book reader software should allow an even narrower inquiry, such\nas one seeking the abbreviation for a specific word (e.g., institute) or illustrative citations for a\nparticular state, Ohio, say.\nIf the device on which you are reading this e-book allows it, the pdf format will enable you to\nprint or to copy and paste portions, large or small, into other documents. However, since the\n\nv\n\n\x0cwork is filled with linked cross references and both the table of contents and index rely on\nthem, most will find a print copy far less useful than the electronic original.\nHelp with Citation Issues Beyond the Scope of this Work\nThe "help" links available throughout the work lead back to this preface and its tips on how to\nfind specific topics. Being an introductory work, not a comprehensive reference, this resource\nhas a limited scope and assumes that users confronting specialized citation issues will have to\npursue them into the pages of The Bluebook, the ALWD Citation Manual, or a guide or\nmanual dealing with the citation practices of their particular jurisdiction. The cross reference\ntables in sections 7-300 (Bluebook) and 7-400 (ALWD), incorporated by links throughout this\nwork, are designed to facilitate such out references. Wherever you see [BB|ALWD] at the end of a\nsection heading you can obtain direct pointers to more detailed material in The Bluebook (by\nclicking on BB) or ALWD Citation Manual (ALWD).\nComments, Corrections, Extensions\nFeedback on this e-book would be most welcome. What doesn\'t work, isn\'t clear, is missing,\nappears to be in error? Has a change occurred in one of the fifty states that should be\nreported? Comments of these and other kinds can sent by email addressed to peter.martin@\ncornell.edu with the word "Citation" appearing in the subject line. Many of the features and\nsome of the coverage of this reference are the direct result of past user questions and advice.\nAdditional Resources\nA complementary series of "Citing ... in brief" video tutorials offers a quick start introduction\nto citation of the major categories of legal sources. These videos are also useful for review.\nCurrently, the following are available:\n1. Citing Judicial Opinions ... in Brief (8.5 minutes)\n2. Citing Constitutional and Statutory Provisions ... in Brief (14 minutes)\n3. Citing Agency Material ... in Brief (12 minutes)\n\nvi\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 1-000. BASIC LEGAL CITATION: WHAT AND WHY? [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 1-100. Introduction\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nWhen lawyers present legal arguments and judges write opinions, they cite authority. They\nlace their representations of what the law is and how it applies to a given situation with\nreferences to statutes, regulations, and prior appellate decisions they believe to be pertinent\nand supporting. They also refer to persuasive secondary literature such as treatises,\nrestatements, and journal articles. As a consequence, those who would read law writing and\ndo law writing must master a new, technical language \xe2\x80\x93 "legal citation."\nFor many years, the authoritative reference work on "legal citation" was a manual written and\npublished by a small group of law reviews. Known by the color of its cover, The Bluebook\nwas the codification of professional norms that introduced generations of law students to\n"legal citation." So completely do many academics, lawyers, and judges identify the process\nwith that book they may refer to putting citations in proper form as "Bluebooking" or ask a\nlaw student or graduate whether she knows how to "Bluebook." The most recent edition of\nThe Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, the nineteenth, was published in 2010. In 2000\na competing reference appeared, one designed specifically for instructional use. Prepared by\nthe Association of Legal Writing Directors, the ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional\nSystem of Citation (4th ed. 2010) has won wide acceptance in law schools.\nDifferences between the two are minor (and noted here). In the way that dictionaries both\nprescribe and reflect usage, so do these manuals. Both also reflect their origins. They are\nprepared in law schools with comprehensive print libraries and access to the most expensive\ncommercial online legal information systems. Their principal focus is on the type of writing\nthat law students and law professors do and that academic law journals publish. The realities\nof professional practice in many settings, particularly at a time when digital distribution of\nlegal materials is displacing print, lead to dialects or usages in legal citation neither manual\nincludes. And the type of writing required of lawyers and judges and the context lead to\ncitation practices quite different from those appropriate to published articles.\nThis introduction to legal citation is focused on the forms of citation used in professional\npractice rather than those used in journal publication. For that reason, it does not cover The\nBluebook\'s distinct typography rules for the latter. Furthermore, it aims to identify the more\nimportant points on which there is divergence between the rules set out in the two manuals\nand evolving usage reflected in legal memoranda and briefs prepared by practicing lawyers.\nAs is true with other languages, learning to read "legal citation" is easier than learning to write\nit fluently. The active use of any language requires greater mastery than the receiving and\nunderstanding of it. In addition, there is the potential confusion of dialects or other\nnonstandard forms of expression. As already noted, "legal citation," like other languages, does\nindeed have dialects. Most are readily understandable and thus pose little likelihood of\nconfusion for a reader. To the beginning writer, however, they present a serious risk of\nmisleading and inconsistent models. As a writer of "legal citation," you must take care that\nyou check all references that you find in the work of others. This includes citations in court\n1\n\n\x0copinions. In part this is because commercial publishers have long viewed citation as a subtle\nform of advertising through branding. Thus, citations in decisions published in the multiple\nseries of the National Reporter System of the Thomson Reuters unit known as West (from the\nAtlantic Reporter to the Federal Supplement) have been altered by its editors to refer to other\nWest publications. In addition, several important state courts, California and New York\namong them, have idiosyncratic citation norms for their own decisions. Many more cite their\nstate\'s statutes and administrative regulations without repetition of a full abbreviation of the\nstate\'s name in each reference, that being implied by context. While each of these courts is\nlikely to accept \xe2\x80\x93 indeed, may even prefer \xe2\x80\x93 briefs using the same citation dialect, Federal\ncourts in the same state may not. In short, copying and pasting citations from decisions and\nother references into one\'s own writing is almost certain to yield inconsistent, nonstandard,\nand even incomplete citations.\nChanges in citation norms over time also caution against relying on source material for proper\ncitation form. The Bluebook has been revised five times since 1990, substantially in 1991,\ncontroversially in 1996, and again in 2000, 2005, and 2010 (see \xc2\xa7 7-200). Because of these\nchanges, citations you find in legal documents published in prior years, although they may\nhave been totally conformed to citation standards at the time of writing, may need\nreformatting to comply with current ones. In other words, imported citations, even those\nimported from the most carefully edited pre-2010 journal articles, books, or opinions, may not\nbe in proper current form. It should also be noted that The Bluebook itself has throughout\nthese revisions set forth two distinct versions of citation \xe2\x80\x93 one for journals and an alternative\nset of "practitioner rules."\nFew people find a dictionary the best starting point for learning a new language. For many of\nthe same reasons neither The Bluebook nor the ALWD Citation Manual is a good primer. Like\ndictionaries, both manuals are designed as comprehensive reference works. This introduction\nrefers to them throughout. But while The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual aim at\nexhaustive coverage, these materials seek to introduce the basics through concise statements\nof principles and usage linked to examples. The aim is not to separate you from a full\nreference work; inevitably you will encounter unusual situations that require "looking up" the\nproper "rule" or abbreviation in a more comprehensive manual. Instead, this introduction aims\nat building a basic mastery of "legal citation" as codified in the two major references \xe2\x80\x93 a level\nof mastery that should enable you to do all of your legal reading and much of your legal\nwriting without having to reach for them. Since both The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation\nManual embrace the full range of journal writing, they furnish guidance on how to cite all\nmanner of references infrequently used in practitioner writing, including a variety of foreign\nlaw materials and historic references. By contrast, this introduction is limited to contemporary\nU.S. legal material.\nBecause this introduction is not a substitute for a comprehensive reference, you would be wise\nto introduce yourself to one as you proceed through this material. Read through its table of\ncontents and introductory material. Each topic covered here includes links to tables providing\nreferences to coverage in The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual. Observing how the\nmanual that you have chosen (or others have chosen for you) arrays its more detailed\ntreatment should be part of your initial exploration of each topic here.\n\n2\n\n\x0cThere is no question but that striving for proper citation form will for a time seem a silly\ndistraction from the core project of writing. But as is true with other languages, those who use\nthis one carefully make negative assumptions about the craft of those who don\'t. Being a\nsimple language at its core, this one should fairly quickly become a matter of habit and, thus,\nno longer a distraction.\n\xc2\xa7 1-200. Purposes of Legal Citation\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nWhat is "legal citation"? It is a standard language that allows one writer to refer to legal\nauthorities with sufficient precision and generality that others can follow the\nreferences. Because writing by lawyers and judges is so dependent on such references, it is a\nlanguage of abbreviations and special terms. While this encryption creates difficulty for lay\nreaders, it achieves a dramatic reduction in the space consumed by the, often numerous,\nreferences. As you become an experienced reader of law writing, you will learn to follow a\nline of argument straight through the many citations embedded in it. Even so, citations are a\nbother until the reader wishes to follow one. The fundamental tradeoff that underlies any\ncitation scheme is one between providing full information about the referenced work and\nkeeping the text as uncluttered as possible. Standard abbreviations and codes help achieve a\nreasonable compromise of these competing interests.\nA reference properly written in "legal citation" strives to do at least three things, within\nlimited space:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nidentify the document and document part to which the writer is referring\nprovide the reader with sufficient information to find the document or document part\nin the sources the reader has available (which may or may not be the same sources as\nthose used by the writer), and\nfurnish important additional information about the referenced material and its\nconnection to the writer\'s argument to assist readers in deciding whether or not to\npursue the reference.\n\nConsider the following illustration of the problem faced and the tradeoff struck by "legal\ncitation." In 1989, the Supreme Court decided an important copyright case. There are\ncountless sources of the full text opinion. One is LexisNexis, where the following appears\nprior to the opinion. If a lawyer, wanting to refer to all or part of that opinion, were to include\nall that identifying material in her brief (with a similar amount of identifying material for\nother authorities) there would be little room for anything else. Readers of such a brief would\nhave an impossible time following lines of argument past the massive interruptions of\ncitation.\n\n3\n\n\x0cCOMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE ET AL. v. REID\nNo. 88-293\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n490 U.S. 730; 109 S. Ct. 2166; 104 L. Ed. 2d 811; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2727; 57 U.S.L.W.\n4607; 10 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1985; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26,425; 16 Media L. Rep. 1769\nMarch 29, 1989, Argued\nJune 5, 1989, Decided\nPRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\nTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.\nDISPOSITION: 270 U. S. App. D. C. 26, 846 F. 2d 1485, affirmed.\n\nIn standard "legal citation," the reference to this opinion becomes simply:\nCmty. for Creative Nonviolence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).\nWith economy this identifies the document and allows another lawyer to retrieve the decision\nfrom a wide range of print and electronic sources. The "identifier" of "490 U.S. 730" suffices\nfor a reader who has access to West\'s Supreme Court Reporter published by Thomson Reuters\nor to the Lawyers\' Edition, Second Series published in print and online by LexisNexis or to\nWestlaw or to the myriad other online and disc-based sources of Supreme Court decisions. It\nalso tells the reader that this is a 1989 decision of the United States Supreme Court (and not,\nsay, a fifty year old opinion of a U.S. District Court).\nThe task of "legal citation" in short is to provide sufficient information to the reader of a brief\nor memorandum to aid a decision about which authorities to check as well as in what order to\nconsult them and to permit efficient and precise retrieval \xe2\x80\x93 all of that, without consuming any\nmore space or creating any more distraction than is absolutely necessary.\n\xc2\xa7 1-300. Types of Citation Principles\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThe detailed principles of citation can be conceived of as falling into four categories:\nFull Address Principles: Principles that specify completeness of the address or\nidentification of a cited document or document portion in terms that will allow the reader to\nretrieve it.\n\n4\n\n\x0cOther Minimum Content Principles: Principles that call for the inclusion in a citation of\nadditional information items beyond a retrieval address \xe2\x80\x93 the full name of the author of a\njournal article, the year a decision was rendered or a book, published. Some of these\nprinciples are conditional, that is, they require the inclusion of a particular item under\nspecified circumstances so that the absence of that item from a citation represents that those\ncircumstances do not exist. The subsequent history of a case must be indicated when it\nexists, for example; the edition of a book must be indicated if there have been more than\none. Most of these additional items either furnish a "name" for the cited document or\ninformation that will allow the reader to evaluate its importance.\nCompacting Principles: Principles that reduce the space taken up by the information items\nincluded in a citation. These include standard abbreviations ("United States Code" becomes\n"U.S.C.") and principles that eliminate redundancy. (If the deciding court is communicated\nby the name of the reporter, it need not be repeated in the citation\'s concluding parentheses\nalong with the date as it should otherwise be.)\nFormat Principles: Principles about punctuation, typography, order of items within a\ncitation, and the like. Such principles apply to the optional elements in a citation as well as\nthe mandatory ones. One need not report to the reader that a cited Supreme Court case was\ndecided 5-4; but if one does, there is a standard form.\n\xc2\xa7 1-400. Levels of Mastery\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nWhat degree of mastery of this language should one strive for \xe2\x80\x93 as a student, legal assistant, or\nlawyer?\nRecall that a citation serves several purposes. Of those purposes, one is paramount \xe2\x80\x93\nfurnishing accurate and complete information that will enable retrieval of the cited document\nor document part. The element of citation that calls for immediate mastery is painstaking care\nin recording and presenting the complete address or retrieval ID of a document. Citing a case\nusing the wrong volume or page number, citing a statute with an erroneous section number or\nwithout a necessary title number \xe2\x80\x93 errors like these cannot be explained away by the\nintricacies of citation. Their negative impact on readers is palpable. Consider the frustration\nyou experience when you are given an erroneous or partial street address or an email address\nthat fails because of a typo; a judge\'s reaction to an erroneous citation is likely to be quite\nsimilar.\nSince, in many cases, part of the clear address to a cited document includes an abbreviation, a\nsmall set of abbreviations must be mastered as soon as possible. A minimum set includes\nthose that represent the reporters for contemporary federal decisions, those that represent\ncodified federal statutes and regulations, and those that represent the regional reporters of\nstate decisions. Whenever your research is centered in the law of a particular state, you will\nwant also to memorize the abbreviations that represent the case reports, statutory\ncompilations, and regulations of that state.\nLess critical in terms of function but no more difficult to master are the abbreviations that\nindicate the deciding court when that information is not implicit in the name of the\nreporter. You should strive to master the abbreviations for the circuits of the U.S. Courts of\n5\n\n\x0cAppeals and those for the U.S. District Courts. Any time your research is centered in the law\nof a particular state you will want to master the abbreviations for its different courts.\nLast and least are the conventions for reducing the space consumed by case names and journal\ntitles. Including the full word "Environmental" in a case name rather than the abbreviation\n"Envtl." is, standing by itself, a trivial oversight. A consistent failure to abbreviate on the one\nhand or the use of idiosyncratic or inconsistent abbreviations on the other can produce\ninconvenience for the reader. Since your aim in nearly all law writing will be to persuade your\nreader, to win your reader over, you do not want to irritate or to convey an impression of\ncarelessness. Therefore, a final review of one\'s citations against the standard abbreviations\nand omissions set forth in one or the other of the dominant manuals is an important step. In\ntime, you will find that you have internalized most of those rules.\nWriting legal citation follows thorough legal research. As you carry out your research, your\nnotes should capture all the information you will need to write the necessary citations. That\nentails recording all the required items for a full citation. It doesn\'t mean that you should take\nthe time in the midst of research to check proper abbreviations; that can be a later step. What\nyou will want to achieve, as soon as possible, is knowledge of what information elements will\nbe required in a full citation. Knowing what to note at the time you do your research will save\nyou from having to pay return visits to sources simply to determine which circuit decided a\nparticular case, what paragraph or page numbers are associated with the portion of a decision\nsupporting your point, or how recently the statutory compilation on which you are relying was\nupdated.\nLearning to read legal citation should be your first goal. Since you are surrounded by citations\nin any cases or articles you read, that should be easy. Even this requires an active frame of\nmind, however; it is easy to skim past citations. As you read legal material exercise your\ngrowing command of legal citation by asking yourself occasionally about a cited source:\nWhat is it? How would I retrieve it? And when you are reading in an environment that permits\nready access to cases, statutes or other cited material and you are curious about a point on\nwhich there are cited references (or your head simply needs a change of pace) follow a\ncitation or two. Reading and following citations should not require use of a manual.\nUltimately you will be able to write most citations without use of this reference or a manual \xe2\x80\x93\nmost but not all. The old and the unusual will drive even the most experienced legal writer\nback to the pages of The Bluebook or the ALWD Citation Manual and, in states where one\nexists, a local citation guide.\n\xc2\xa7 1-500. Citation in Transition: From Proprietary Print Citations to Vendor- and\nMedium-Neutral Schemes Contents | Index | Help | < | >\nNeither of the major citation manuals gives much hint of the intense policy debate over\ncitation norms catalyzed by the shift from print to digital media. Over the past two decades\nonline and disc-based law collections have become primary research tools for most lawyers\nand judges. Simultaneously, the number of alternate sources of individual decisions,\nregulations, and statutes has exploded. Today, in many jurisdictions, legal research is carried\nout by means of at least a half dozen competing versions of appellate decisions distributed in\nprint, via the Internet, and on disc. Because of these changes, there has been growing pressure\n6\n\n\x0con those ultimately responsible for citation norms, namely the courts, to establish new rules\nthat no longer presuppose that some one publisher\'s print volume (created over a year after the\ndecisions or statutes it compiles were handed down or enacted) is the key reference. Some\njurisdictions have responded; many more are sure to follow. On the other hand, work habits\nand established practices die hard, especially when they align with vested commercial\ninterests.\nIn 1996, the American Bar Association approved a resolution recommending that courts adopt\na uniform public domain citation system "equally effective for printed case reports and for\ncase reports electronically published on computer disks or network services." It proceeded to\nlay out the essential components of such a system. The American Association of Law\nLibraries had previously gone on record for "vendor and media neutral" citation. An\nincreasing number of state courts have adopted citation schemes embodying the core elements\nrecommended by these national bodies. For example, North Dakota state court opinions\nreleased after January 1, 1997 are to be cited according to the following North Dakota\nSupreme Court rule:\nWhen available, initial citations must include the volume and initial page number of the\nNorth Western Reporter in which the opinion is published. The initial citation of any\npublished opinion of the Supreme Court released on or after January 1, 1997, contained in a\nbrief, memorandum, or other document filed with any trial or appellate court and the\ncitation in the table of cases in a brief must also include a reference to the calendar year in\nwhich the decision was filed, followed by the court designation of "ND", followed by a\nsequential number assigned by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. A paragraph citation should\nbe placed immediately following the sequential number assigned to the case. Subsequent\ncitations within the brief, memorandum or other document must include the paragraph\nnumber and sufficient references to identify the initial citation.\nN.D. R. Ct. 11.6 (b).\nThe Rule provides examples, e.g.:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ND 15, 600 N.W.2d 900 (fictional).\nSmith v. Jones, 1996 ND 15, \xc2\xb6 21, 600 N.W.2d 900 (fictional).\n\nFor decisions of the North Dakota Court of Appeals, the formula is the same with the\nsubstitution of "ND App" for "ND." As intended, the system facilitates precise and immediate\nreference to a portion of a North Dakota appellate decision that is as effective whether the\nreader follows the citation using the court\'s own Web site or one of the commercial online\nservices or finds it in a volume of the North Western Reporter. Since the key citation\nelements, including paragraph numbers, are embedded in each decision by the court, they are\ncarried over into that print reporter and the commercial electronic services. As a\ncomplementary measure, the North Dakota Supreme Court Web site furnishes the North\nWestern Reporter citations for all decisions in its database, which currently reaches back\nthrough 1966. Consequently, researchers need not consult a commercial source to obtain the\nvolume and page numbers associated with over four decades of decisions.\n\n7\n\n\x0cWhile the formats and other details vary slightly, other jurisdictions have implemented case\ncitation schemes employing the same basic structure \xe2\x80\x93 case name, year, court, sequential\nnumber, and (within the opinion) paragraph number or numbers. In addition to North Dakota\nthese include Colorado, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah,\nVermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In 2009 Arkansas began to designate its appellate\ndecisions in this way, while retaining page numbers within the court-released pdf file as the\nmeans for pinpoint cites. Four other states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and, most recently,\nIllinois, have adopted medium-neutral citation systems, but along significantly different lines.\nAt the federal level, the progress has, to date, been minimal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for\nthe Sixth Circuit began to apply medium-neutral citations to its own decisions in 1994, but it\nhas never directed attorneys to use them or employed them itself in referring to prior decisions\nthat have appeared in the Federal Reporter series. Among district courts, the District of South\nDakota appears to stand alone. Since 1996, some, although not all, of its judges have applied\nparagraph numbers and case designations in the format "2008 DSD 6" to their decisions and\nused the system in citations to them. (See \xc2\xa7 2-230.)\nGiven their quite different structure, codified statutes and regulations lend themselves to\nvendor- and medium-neutral citation. Evolving professional practice, influenced by the\nprevalence of electronic media, is reducing the hold that certain preferred print editions once\nheld on statute and regulation citations. (See \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 2-335, 2-410.)\n\xc2\xa7 1-600. Who Sets Citation Norms\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThere is no national citation standard-setting authority, and despite the tendency of citation\nmanuals to attach the word "rule" to specific citation practices, their authoritative reach is, at\nbest, limited to a specific sector \xe2\x80\x93 those writing for particular journals, editing material for one\nor another commercial publisher, submitting briefs to a particular court. For most law writing,\nthe relevant citations norms are set by widely accepted professional usage.\nThe citation manual created by the editors of four law journals, the Columbia Law Review, the\nHarvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and The Yale Law Journal,\ninvariably referred to as The Bluebook, was for decades the most widely used codification of\nnational citation norms. Now in its nineteenth edition, The Bluebook governs the citation\npractices of the majority of U.S. student-edited law journals and has, through its successive\neditions, shaped the citation education and resulting citation habits of most U.S. lawyers.\nThe much newer ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation (4th ed. 2010)\nhas gained a wide following in U.S. law schools, and since it aims to reflect current usage, it\nis highly consistent with The Bluebook.\nAn earlier competing academic project, The University of Chicago Manual of Legal Citation,\nwhich called itself the "Maroon Book," offered a distinctly different and less rigid set of rules.\nFirst published in 1989, it failed to win a significant following or affect professional practice\nexcept insofar as it recognized the importance of leaving "a fair amount of discretion to\npractitioners, authors, and editors." Id. at 9.\nIn some states, the norms set out in national manuals are supplemented or overridden by court\nrules about the content, composition, and format of legal memoranda and briefs. Most often\n8\n\n\x0csuch rules are largely consistent with national norms but set out special and typically more\ndetailed rules for the citation of cases, statutes, and regulations of the state in question. Some\nof these state-specific rules call for inclusion of an additional citation element, such as a\nmedium-neutral or other official case citation. Others require less, as, for example, not calling\nfor repetition of the state name or its abbreviation in all state statutory citations, that being\nimplied. Only a handful of these court rules set out a markedly different citation format.\nWhile court-mandated citation rules of this sort formally apply only to documents filed with\nthe specified courts, they are likely to influence professional citation practice within the state\nmore generally.\nCourts not only shape local citation norms by local rules governing brief format, their policies\nfor publication and dissemination affect the means of citation. Only a court can effectively\nestablish the means for vendor- and medium-neutral citation of its decisions. Courts that leave\nthe association of an enduring, citable identification for each decision and its parts to a\ncommercial publisher, by default, force the use of the dominant publisher\'s print citation\nscheme.\nSome courts, including both the Supreme Court and court systems in a number of states,\nretain full editorial responsibility for citable, final and official versions of their opinions.\nGenerally implemented through a public court reporter\'s office, this function invariably gives\nrise to detailed citation norms, as well as other rules of style, that apply to decisions\ndistributed by the court. Where the court\'s citation format is significantly different from\nnational norms, as it is, for example, in New York, that may or may not influence lawyer\ncitation practice. Courts seriously implementing medium-neutral citation not only attach the\nnecessary decision ID and paragraph numbering to each decision, but use it in citing prior\ncases.\nThe large commercial publishers also have their own distinct citation practices, in part\ndesigned to reinforce brand. A judge\'s citation to "Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55\n(1979)" when reported in West\'s National Reporter System becomes "Butner v. United States,\n440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979)." Annotations in a West annotated code\nsystematically place that company\'s National Reporter System citation for a case ahead of its\nvolume and page number in an official state reporter. Annotations and summaries in the\nLexisNexis Lawyers\' Edition of Supreme Court decisions cite to the same publisher\'s United\nStates Code Service \xe2\x80\x93 e.g., "15 USCS \xc2\xa7 637(d)."\nAs noted in the discussion of medium-neutral citation, two important national bodies, the\nAmerican Bar Association (ABA) and American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), have\nsought to persuade courts, publishers, and lawyers to implement citation standards that are not\nkeyed to print or to any specific publisher\'s offerings. The AALL has gone further and\npublished a Universal Citation Guide. This guide sets out a blueprint for courts designing\nmedium-neutral citation schemes for their own decisions, as well as complementary\napproaches to other types of legal authority that can be implemented simply through\nprofessional acceptance. See AALL, Universal Citation Guide (ver. 2.1 2002).\nIn the end, most of "legal citation," like most of any language, is established by constantly\nevolving usage, reinforced in some cases, altered in others, by the members of distinct\ncommunities.\n9\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-000. HOW TO CITE ...\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-100. How to Cite Electronic Sources\nWhile the principal citation reference works still treat the citation of electronically accessed\nsources as though they were exceptional cases, increasingly online sources, disc and e-book\npublications constitute not only print alternatives, but preferred distribution channels. This is\ntrue for judicial opinions, statutes, regulations, journal articles, and government reports of\nmany kinds. Not only are many legal materials now available in paired print and electronic\neditions put out by a single publisher, but sources have proliferated. Today, it is far less likely\nthan it was only a few years ago that the person writing a legal document and that document\'s\nreaders will be working from exactly the same source in the same format.\nThis shift makes it important that, wherever possible, a citation furnish sufficient information\nabout the cited material to enable a reader to pursue the reference without regard to format or\nimmediate source. With the most frequently cited materials \xe2\x80\x93 cases, constitutions, statutes,\nregulations, and recent journal articles \xe2\x80\x93 this is typically not a challenge since most legal\ninformation distributors, whether commercial, public, or nonprofit, endeavor to furnish all the\ndata necessary for source- and medium-independent citation.\nSo long as you are able to furnish all the citation information called for by \xc2\xa7 2-200, there is no\nneed to indicate whether you relied on any one of numerous online sources, an e-book or a\ndisc instead of one of the several print editions for the text of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.\nSimilarly, your citations to provisions of the U.S. Code or a comparable compilation of state\nstatutes need not indicate whether you accessed them in print or from an electronic source,\nnor need you indicate that you accessed an article in a widely distributed law journal on\nLexisNexis, Westlaw or some other Internet site.\nCitations making specific reference to an electronic source are necessary only when the cited\nmaterial is not widely available from multiple sources and when identifying a specific\nelectronic source is likely significantly to aid readers\' access to it.\nThe relevant citation principles follow; section 3-100 provides basic examples.\n\n10\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-110. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Core Elements [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-110(1) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steve Kenney & John Borking, The Value of Privacy Engineering, 2002(1) J. Info.\nL. & Tech., http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/ejl/jilt/2002_1/kenny/.\n\xe2\x80\x93 World Bank, Old Age Security: Pension Reform in China 2 (1997), http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000178830_981\n01912211149.\n\xe2\x80\x93 American Bar Association, Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar,\nStatistics, available at\nhttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/statistics.html (last\nvisited Aug. 28, 2013).\n\nPrinciple 1: Cite to material as it is denominated and organized in "print" unless much better\naccess is available electronically. Even where an electronic source is used, if the original\nmaterial is formatted for print, cite in relation to the print version, but follow that reference\nwith a parallel citation to the electronic source if it is likely to aid retrieval. "Likely to aid\nretrieval" should, of course, be considered from the standpoint of the expected readers of the\nwork in which the citation will appear. The following signals can be used to indicate whether:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nthe electronic source is the only known source or the print source is, as a practical\nmatter, unavailable (no explanatory word or phrase)\nthe electronic source is a parallel reference to a print source ("available at").\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-115(1)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-110(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steve Kenney & John Borking, The Value of Privacy Engineering, 2002(1) J. Info.\nL. & Tech., http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/ejl/jilt/2002_1/kenny/.\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1121, at *4 (2d Cir.\nJan. 20, 2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 WL 177220, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 20,\n2010).\n\nPrinciple 2: The citation should consist of all the elements required for the basic document\ntype (e.g., case, constitution, statute, regulation, article, report, or treatise), followed by the\nappropriate signal, and as complete an ID or address for the online electronic source as is\navailable.\nExamples of appropriate address information include:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nthe full URL of a Web-based document\na commercial database retrieval citation (e.g., a Westlaw or LexisNexis citation)\n11\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-115(2)!\nWhere no unique address is available indicate the source and database identification\ninformation in a parenthetical, e.g.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n(Bloomberg Law)\n(Westlaw, Legal Newspapers)\n(LexisNexis Veterans Benefits Manual and Related Laws and Regulations CD-ROM).\n\nSimilarly, if a complete URL is either unavailable or unwieldy and a Web search on the title\nwill not retrieve the document, provide a base URL plus the steps necessary to access it, in\nparentheses, e.g.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n(follow "Data & Research" link; then follow "Policy Research Reports" link).\n\xc2\xa7 2-110(3) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 American Bar Association, Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar,\nStatistics, available at\nhttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/statistics.html (last\nvisited Aug. 28, 2013).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Dep\'t of Veterans Affairs, M21-1, The Adjudiciation Division \xc2\xa7 2.03 (LexisNexis\nVeterans Benefits Manual and Related Laws and Regulations CD-ROM, 2012).\n\nPrinciple 3: A date should be furnished for an electronic source when the document citation\ndoes not itself carry that information unambiguously. That date should be the stated "current\nthrough" date or release date for a disc publication, the "through" date for online sources if\navailable or a "last modified" or "last updated" date if one is furnished for the cited material\nor, failing all else, a "last visited" or "accessed" date. Where such a date is required, it should\nbe placed at the end of the citation in a parenthetical. If there is already a parenthetical\nincluding source and database information (see above), the two should be combined,\nseparated by a comma.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-115(3)!\n\n12\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-115. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-115 Examples:\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steve Kenney & John Borking, The Value of Privacy Engineering, 2002(1) J. Info.\nL. & Tech. (Mar. 22, 2002),\nhttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/ejl/jilt/2002_1/kenny/. [Per the ALWD\nCitation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 American Bar Association, Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar,\nStatistics (available at\nhttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/statistics.html)\n(accessed Aug. 28, 2013). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 World Bank, Old Age Security: Pension Reform in China 2 (1997) (available at\nhttp://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000178830_981\n01912211149) [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: The ALWD Citation Manual treats these situations somewhat differently than the\nprinciple set out in \xc2\xa7 2-110(1). It provides specifically for electronic journals, placing the\nURL, without signal, at the end of the citation, and for cases, where it places the URL or\ncommercial database cite directly following the parties\' names (see \xc2\xa7 2-225). As to other\nmaterial, whether available from both print and electronic sources or only electronic ones, it\nplaces the electronic address (URL, commercial database cite, database identifier) in a\nparenthetical preceded by "available in" or "available at".\nPoint 2: The first edition of the ALWD Citation Manual placed URLs in angle brackets; but\nnow, like The Bluebook, it leaves them off.\nPoint 3: The ALWD Citation Manual favors the use of "last updated" over "last modified"\nand "accessed" over "last visited".\n\xc2\xa7 2-120. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xc2\xa7 2-120 Example\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Grimmelmann, The Structure of Search Engine Law 45 (New York Law\nSchool Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06/07-23, 2007), available at\nhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=979568.\n\nScholarly articles frequently appear online prior to their appearance in print, if, indeed, that\never occurs. Often, they are issued in an institution\'s working paper series. Where that is the\ncase, the working paper designation and number should be included in the citation in the\nparentheses containing the date.\n\n13\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-200. How to Cite Judicial Opinions\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nIn the U.S. legal system, judicial opinions are probably the most frequently cited category of\nlegal material. The articulated grounds of past judicial decisions are, in many instances,\nbinding precedent for currently litigated matters. Under other circumstances, they are\n"persuasive" authority. In either event, if on point, they should be cited. In the context of legal\ncitation, judicial opinions are commonly referred to as "cases" and organized collections of\nopinions are called "law reports" or "case reports." Most cited "cases" are opinions of\nappellate courts; however, trial court rulings on questions of law do on occasion produce\ndecisions lawyers may wish to cite, despite their limited force as precedent.\nPrior to the era of electronic information dissemination, many courts that produced large\nnumbers of legal opinions selected only a fraction of them for "publication" in law reports.\nThe remaining "unpublished cases" were, as a practical matter, unavailable for citation. The\nappearance of online systems ready, even eager, to pick up and distribute "unpublished"\ndecisions forced courts to be clearer about the status of decisions they view as merely\ninvolving the routine application of settled law. See \xc2\xa7 2-250.\nSince the decisions of American courts generally deal with multiple issues and tend to be\nlengthy, recounting pre-litigation facts and procedural events of limited relevance to the\npoints for which they might be cited, it is rarely enough simply to cite the case. Under most\ncircumstances, a full case citation should include a reference to a specific portion or portions\nof the opinion. A reference that merely directs the reader to a decision of the U.S. Supreme\nCourt and no more has a greater likelihood of frustrating than persuading. It is analogous to\nroute directions that identify the city or neighborhood but fail to furnish a complete street\naddress.\nThe relevant citation principles follow; section 3-200 provides both basic examples and\nsample case citations from all major U.S. jurisdictions.\nFor a quick start introduction or review, there is also a companion video tutorial, \xe2\x80\x9cCiting\nJudicial Opinions ... in Brief\xe2\x80\x9d:\nhttp://www.access-to-law.com/citation/videos/citing_judicial_opinions.html.\nIt runs 8.5 minutes.\n\n14\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-210. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-210(a) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d\n120.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Kootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085 (Idaho\n1983).\n\nPrinciple: The core of a case citation consists of four elements:\nElement (a) - The parties\' names (often referred to as the "case name" or less frequently the\n"title," "style," or "caption" of the case)\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNames are italicized or underlined (\xc2\xa7 5-100)\nand boiled down using an extensive set of omissions (\xc2\xa7 4-300) and abbreviations (\xc2\xa7\n4-100),\no with a lower case "v." replacing "versus",\no and ending with a comma separating this component from the next.\n\xc2\xa7 2-210(b) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d\n120.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, \xc2\xb6 19, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613\nN.W.2d 120.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Kootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085 (Idaho\n1983).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Kootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085,\n1092 (Idaho 1983).\n\nElement (b) - At least one retrieval ID or address for the case (often itself referred to as the\n"cite or "citation") consisting of\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\na medium-neutral citation, if provided by the court, (\xc2\xa7 2-230)\nfailing that, one constructed of:\no the reporter volume number\no reporter name (abbreviated) (\xc2\xa7 4-400)\no the first page of the case in that volume.\n\nIf the reference is to a portion of the opinion (as in most instances it should be), the\nparagraph number or numbers of that portion (with a medium-neutral citation) or the page\nnumber or numbers of that part should follow the case retrieval ID or address, set off by a\ncomma. (Citations to one or more specific point or points in an opinion are commonly\nreferred to as "pinpoint" or "jump" citations.)\n\n15\n\n\x0cIn some situations only one ID or reporter citation is required. In others, two or more\nshould be provided in "parallel" \xe2\x80\x93 i.e., in succession \xe2\x80\x93 separated by commas.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMost courts that have implemented medium-neutral citation formats call for\ncontinued use of print-based case IDs in parallel, when available, although not\nparallel "pinpoint" pages since the paragraph numbers serve that purpose equally in\nprint.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 When state cases are cited to a court in the same state, parallel addresses should be\nprovided if the case is reported in both an official state reporter and a West regional\nreporter \xe2\x80\x93 the official reporter address coming first, the regional reporter address\nsecond, the two separated by a comma. Under other circumstances, state decisions\nthat appear in a regional reporter are cited only to that reporter. This can mean that\nthe same decision will, when cited within its state, have a different citation form\nthan when cited in other jurisdictions.\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-215(1)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-210(c) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d\n120.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Kootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085 (Idaho\n1983).\n\nElement (c) The date\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nThe year of decision is enclosed in parentheses if it has not already appeared in the\ncase ID.\n\xc2\xa7 2-210(d) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d\n120.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Kootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085 (Idaho\n1983).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Comm. to Prevent Mun. Bankr. v. Renne, 77 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1996).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corp. Comprehensive Disability Prot. Plan, 979 F. Supp.\n726 (N.D. Ill. 1997).\n\xe2\x80\x93 IBM v. Universal Transcon. Corp., 191 A.D.2d 536, 595 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2d Dept.\n1993).\n\nElement (d) The court\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIn any reference where the court is sufficiently identified by the case ID or reporter\n\xe2\x80\x93 as for example "WI" or "Wis." \xe2\x80\x93 no additional reference is necessary.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The regional reporters covering numerous states and the reporters containing\ndecisions of the lower federal courts do not sufficiently identify the court for a\nparticular case. Consequently, that information must be added. Court identification\nis placed, in abbreviated form, in the parentheses containing the year of decision.\n16\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nThe abbreviation for a state standing alone identifies a decision of the jurisdiction\xe2\x80\x99s\nhighest appellate court. For that reason no notation at all is required when the state\nis indicated in a reporter name. For example, "(Kan. 1976)" indicates a 1976\ndecision of the Kansas Supreme Court while a decision of the Kansas Court of\nAppeals would be indicated by "(Kan. Ct. App. 1984)" and a decision of the Kansas\nSupreme Court cited to the official reporter would simply show the date. \xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7\n2-215(2)!\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Whether to indicate which of several circuits, districts, divisions or departments of a\ncourt rendered a decision depends both on the court and the context for the citation.\nWhich circuit of the U.S. Courts of Appeals or which U.S. District Court handed\ndown a decision is always indicated. With a decision from an intermediate level\nstate court, the information should be included in any setting where it bears on the\ncitation\'s authority or is otherwise important. Thus, in a state where the decisions of\none department or circuit are not binding on another one, citations should identify\nthe unit that decided a case. When citing the same decision in another state there\nwould be no need to do so.\n\xc2\xa7 2-215. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\nPoint 1: Whether to use parallel case citations and, if not, which citation to use is a subject on\nwhich court rules often speak. The practice set out here is consistent with most of them,\nalthough a few state rules call for citations of decisions from other jurisdictions to include\nboth an official reporter reference, if any, and a West regional reporter reference. See \xc2\xa7 7-500.\nPoint 2: The ALWD Citation Manual rejects the dominant practice of including "Ct." when\nabbreviating the many intermediate state appellate courts. Its abbreviation for the Kansas\nCourt of Appeals is, therefore, "Kan. App." rather than "Kan. Ct. App."\n\xc2\xa7 2-220. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases [BB|ALWD]\nMost case citations refer to opinions that have already appeared in established print reporters\nand their conformed electronic counterparts. Opinions for which that is not true either because\nthey are very recent or because the court or publisher of the relevant reporter did not consider\nthe decision important enough for such dissemination call for alternative identification. The\nchallenge in such a situation is to furnish the reader sufficient information to enable retrieval\nof the document from one or more specialized sources. (This is one of the problems addressed\nby medium-neutral citation systems. See \xc2\xa7 2-230.) The following alternatives can be\nused. While they are listed in order of traditional preference, the ultimate choice should be\nmade in terms of the intended readers\' likely access. (Before citing a decision that is not\n"published" because of the court\'s own judgment about its limited precedential importance, be\nsure to consult the court\'s rules. See \xc2\xa7 2-250.)\n\xc2\xa7 2-220(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Flamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, [Insurance] Auto. L. Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 18,307 (Neb. Nov.\n8, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Collins v. United States, 3 Fed. Est. & Gift Tax Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 60,060 (W.D. Okla.\nJan. 31, 1991).\n\n17\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1121, at *4 (2d Cir.\nJan. 20, 2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 WL 177220, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 20,\n2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Everette v. Astrue, No. C 07-3013 MEJ, slip op. at 6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009).\n\nAlternative 1: With cases available in a print looseleaf service or an electronic equivalent,\nthe minimum ID or address (following the parties\' names (\xc2\xa7 2-210(a)) consists of:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\na full service citation, the court (abbreviated), and the full date.\n\xc2\xa7 2-220(2) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Flamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, [Insurance] Auto. L. Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 18,307 (Neb. Nov.\n8, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Collins v. United States, 3 Fed. Est. & Gift Tax Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 60,060 (W.D. Okla.\nJan. 31, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1121, at *4 (2d Cir.\nJan. 20, 2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 WL 177220, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 20,\n2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Everette v. Astrue, No. C 07-3013 MEJ, slip op. at 6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009).\n\nAlternative 2: With cases available in electronic format but not yet in final form, the\nminimum ID or address (following the parties\' names (\xc2\xa7 2-210(a)) consists of:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nthe docket number, a citation to the electronic source (\xc2\xa7 2-100), the "star" page\nnumber(s) assigned by the source for a pinpoint cite, the court (abbreviated and only\nto the extent not communicated by the online citation), and the full date.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-225(1)!\n\n18\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-220(3) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Flamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, [Insurance] Auto. L. Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 18,307 (Neb. Nov.\n8, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Collins v. United States, 3 Fed. Est. & Gift Tax Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 60,060 (W.D. Okla.\nJan. 31, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1121, at *4 (2d Cir.\nJan. 20, 2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 WL 177220, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 20,\n2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Everette v. Astrue, No. C 07-3013 MEJ, slip op. at 6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009).\n\nAlternative 3: With cases available only from the court in slip opinion, the minimum\naddress (following the parties\' names (\xc2\xa7 2-210(a)) consists of:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nthe docket number, the phrase "slip op." (for "slip opinion"), the court (abbreviated),\nand the full date.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-225(2)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-225. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 More Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-225(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 McNamara v. Astrue, No. 09-1124, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 175 (8th Cir. Jan. 5,\n2010). [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 McNamara v. Astrue, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 175 (8th Cir. Jan. 5,\n2010). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 McNamara v. Astrue, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 10392 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2010). [Per\nthe ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: The ALWD Citation Manual suggests omission of the docket number from citations\nto cases that are in LEXIS or Westlaw. While that saves a modest amount of space, inclusion\nof the docket number facilitates access to the decision by those using another electronic\nsource, whether it be a competing commercial online system or the court\'s own Web site.\n\xc2\xa7 2-225(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 McNamara v. Astrue, No. 09-1124, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 175 (8th Cir. Jan. 5,\n2010). [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 McNamara v. Astrue, ___ F.3d ____, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 175 (8th Cir. Jan. 5,\n2010). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 McNamara v. Astrue, ___ F.3d ____, 2010 WL 10392 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2010). [Per\nthe ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\nPoint 2: When the decision is certain to appear in an established reporter but has not yet been\npublished, the ALWD Citation Manual calls for inclusion of a skeletal print citation with three\nunderlined spaces taking the place of the missing volume and page numbers.\n19\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-230. Medium-Neutral Case Citations [BB|ALWD]\nIn 1996, the American Bar Association approved a resolution recommending that courts adopt\na uniform public domain citation system "equally effective for printed case reports and for\ncase reports electronically published on computer disks or network services" and laying out\nthe essential components of such a medium-neutral system (see \xc2\xa7 1-500). The American\nAssociation of Law Libraries had previously gone on record for "vendor and media neutral"\ncitation and has since issued a Universal Citation Guide that details an approach consistent\nwith that urged by the ABA. An increasing number of jurisdictions have adopted citation\nschemes embodying some or all of the elements recommended by these national bodies.\nNorth Dakota is representative. Its court rules state in relevant part:\nWhen available, initial citations must include the volume and initial page number of the\nNorth Western Reporter in which the opinion is published. The initial citation of any\npublished opinion of the Supreme Court released on or after January 1, 1997, contained in a\nbrief, memorandum, or other document filed with any trial or appellate court and the\ncitation in the table of cases in a brief must also include a reference to the calendar year in\nwhich the decision was filed, followed by the court designation of "ND", followed by a\nsequential number assigned by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. A paragraph citation should\nbe placed immediately following the sequential number assigned to the case. Subsequent\ncitations within the brief, memorandum or other document must include the paragraph\nnumber and sufficient references to identify the initial citation.\nN.D. R. Ct. Rule 11.6 (b).\nThe Rule supplies examples, e.g.:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ND 15, 600 N.W.2d 900 (fictional).\nSmith v. Jones, 1996 ND 15, \xc2\xb6 21, 600 N.W.2d 900 (fictional).\n\nFor decisions of the North Dakota Court of Appeals, the formula is the same with the\nsubstitution of "ND App" for "ND." In jurisdictions adopting such a vendor- and mediumneutral citation scheme, that scheme should be used, together with one or more parallel\nreporter citations as may, indeed, be required by court rule or local practice.\nWhile the formats and other details vary slightly, several other jurisdictions have implemented\ncase citation schemes employing the same basic structure \xe2\x80\x93 case name, year, court, sequential\nnumber, and (within the opinion) paragraph number or numbers. In addition to North Dakota\nthese include Colorado, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah,\nVermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In 2009 Arkansas began to designate its appellate\ndecisions in this way, while retaining page numbers within the court-released pdf file as the\nmeans for pinpoint cites. Four other states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and, most recently,\nIllinois, have adopted medium-neutral citation systems, but along the significantly different\nlines noted below. At the federal level, the progress has, to date, been minimal. The U.S.\nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit began to apply medium-neutral citations to its own\ndecisions in 1994, but it has never directed attorneys to use them or employed them itself in\nreferring to prior decisions that have appeared in the Federal Reporter series. Among district\ncourts, the District of South Dakota appears to stand alone. Since 1996 some, although not all,\n20\n\n\x0cof its judges have applied paragraph numbers and case designations in the format "2008 DSD\n6" to their decisions and used the system in citations to them.\nOhio\'s case numbering approach operates across the entire state court system rather than court\nby court, with the result that successive decisions of the state supreme court may be numbered\n3957 and 3995. (These system-wide numbers are assigned by the state\'s reporter of decisions.)\nIllinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi use the docket number as the case ID rather than\ngenerating a new one based on year and decision sequence. In addition, Louisiana uses slip\nopinion page numbers rather than paragraph numbers for pinpoint citation. The U.S. Court of\nAppeals for the Sixth Circuit does the same.\n\xc2\xa7 2-240. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items [BB|ALWD]\nThe core of a case citation includes at least two items that communicate by their absence. In\nother words, a case citation is read with the expectation that if certain things have occurred\nthey will be reported as additional elements of a reference. Citations that are silent on these\nsubjects are taken as representing that those facts are absent.\nA citation consisting only of the core items represents that a clear holding of a majority of the\ncourt stands for the proposition with which the writer has associated it. It also represents that\nthere have been no legal proceedings in the case occurring after the cited opinion that affect\nits authority. Finally, with a court that releases both "published" and "unpublished" or "nonprecedential" decisions, in the absence of any indication otherwise, the citation of a decision\nrepresents that it has been designated for publication.\n\xc2\xa7 2-240(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 31, 50 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J.,\ndissenting).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999), aff\'d, 531 U.S. 31 (2000).\n\nPrinciple 1: If the citation is to a dissenting, concurring, or plurality opinion or to dictum,\nthat fact should be reported in separate parentheses following the date.\n\xc2\xa7 2-240(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 31, 50 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J.,\ndissenting).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999), aff\'d, 531 U.S. 31 (2000).\n\nPrinciple 2: If there have been one or more subsequent actions in the case cited, citations\nto those actions should be reported following the core items, preceded by an abbreviation\nindicating the nature of the action (\xc2\xa7 4-200). However, denials of certiorari by the U.S.\nSupreme Court or of similar discretionary appeals by other courts need not be reported\nunless they are recent (within the past two years) or otherwise noteworthy.\n\xc2\xa7 2-240(3) Example\n\n21\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\x93 Davis v. Barnhart, No. 05-10980, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22201 (11th Cir. Oct. 12,\n2005) (unpublished).\n\nPrinciple 3: If the deciding court releases both "published" and "unpublished" or\n"nonprecedential" decisions and the latter carry less weight, decisions of that category\nshould have the characterization given them by the court placed in parentheses following\nthe date. That is unnecessary with U.S. Court of Appeals decisions cited to West\'s Federal\nAppendix Reporter since it contains only "unpublished" decisions. Before citing an\nunpublished decision, however, see \xc2\xa7 2-250.\n\xc2\xa7 2-250. Citing Unpublished Cases [ALWD]\nElectronic distribution of judicial opinions has given wide access to decisions that the issuing\ncourts did not view as important or precedential. A court\'s withholding of such decisions from\nprint publication once effectively limited dissemination, but no longer. While \xc2\xa7 2-220 outlines\nthe format to use in citing "unpublished" cases, court rules may well instruct that decisions the\ncourt has affirmatively designated not to be published should not be cited at all (or at least not\nunless they bear directly on a subsequent matter as, for example, through res judicata). This\nmay be true even if a decision has in fact been published in print. Since 2001, this has been\nthe case with many U.S. Court of Appeals "unpublished" decisions because of West\'s Federal\nAppendix Reporter. Before you cite a decision that the deciding court has labeled\n"unpublished" or "non-precedential," you should consult that court\'s rules on this point.\n\n22\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-300. How to Cite Constitutions, Statutes, and Similar Materials\n\nContents | Index | Help\n\n|<|>\n\nIn the United States, constitutions and statutes are structured in a way that allows citation of\nrelevant provisions without regard to how any particular version or edition has been printed or\nelectronically distributed. In this fundamental sense, they are and long have been vendor- and\nmedium-neutral. That is because articles, sections, clauses, and subsections rather than\nvolumes and page numbers identify specific passages. This holds for such similar legal\nmaterials as local ordinances, on the one hand, and international agreements, on the other.\nWhile these several types of legal materials share this structural quality, constitutions and\nstatutes differ dramatically from one another in a key respect \xe2\x80\x93 frequency of change. The\ncompiled enactments of Congress and the legislatures of the states are constantly subject to\namendment. This reality raises a risk, albeit not a large one in most situations, that the text of\nthe statute to which a writer refers and the text consulted by a reader following the writer\'s\ncitation, at some later date, may be different or that the provisions governing the question\nbeing addressed are not those current in effect. These risks are a consequence of the\npossibility of intervening legislative change per se compounded by the amount of time it takes\nthe respective publishers or disseminators to enter legislative changes in their statutory\ncompilations. Addressing these possibilities calls for both writer and reader to pay serious\nattention to the date of the compilation relied on by the writer. The reader will assume that a\ncitation to the provisions of a constitution or codified statute is referring to the version in\nforce at the time the writing was prepared unless it includes a date element that indicates\notherwise.\nThe relevant citation principles follow; section 3-300 provides both basic examples and\nsamples from all major U.S. jurisdictions.\nFor a quick start introduction or review, there is also a companion video tutorial, \xe2\x80\x9cCiting\nConstitutional and Statutory Provisions ... in Brief\xe2\x80\x9d:\nhttp://www.access-to-law.com/citation/videos/citing_const_statutes.html.\nIt runs 14 minutes.\n\xc2\xa7 2-310. Constitution Citations [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-310(a) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Const. art. III, \xc2\xa7 2, cl. 2.\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Const. amend. XIII, \xc2\xa7 2.\n\xe2\x80\x93 N.Y. Const. art. I, \xc2\xa7 9, cl. 2.\n\nPrinciple: A citation to a provision of either the federal or a state constitution consists of two\nelements:\nElement (a) - The name of the constitution\n(The name consists of the abbreviation of the jurisdiction \xe2\x80\x93 e.g., U.S. for United States,\nN.Y. for New York (\xc2\xa7 4-500) \xe2\x80\x93 and "Const.")\n23\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-310(b) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Const. art. III, \xc2\xa7 2, cl. 2.\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Const. amend. XIII, \xc2\xa7 2.\n\xe2\x80\x93 N.Y. Const. art. I, \xc2\xa7 9, cl. 2.\n\nElement (b) - The cited part\n(Parts often include articles (abbreviated "art."), amendments (abbreviated "amend.") and\nclauses (abbreviated "cl."), in addition to sections (\xc2\xa7).)\nNo punctuation separates the name of the constitution from the first part identifier; commas\nseparate successive subparts. Nothing is italicized or underlined.\n\xc2\xa7 2-310(c) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Const. art. III, \xc2\xa7 2, cl. 2.\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, \xc2\xa7 2 (repealed 1933).\n\xe2\x80\x93 N.Y. Const. art. I, \xc2\xa7 9, cl. 2.\n\nElement (c) - The date\nNo date is required unless the citation is to a provision or version of the constitution no\nlonger in effect.\n\xc2\xa7 2-320. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form [BB|ALWD]\nStatutory provisions are, whenever possible, cited to compilations. For any single U.S.\njurisdiction, there is usually a single codification scheme, ordering sections into topically\nclustered units, even though there may be multiple versions of the code or compilation, print\nand electronic, public and commercial. Until the recent proliferation of electronic sources,\ncitation norms favored citation to one particular print compilation for each jurisdiction. Most\ncitation manuals still appear to do so, but practice is rapidly adjusting to the reality that\nelectronic compilations are in general more up-to-date and therefore more widely used than\nprint ones, that in most jurisdictions no single version is universally relied upon, and that upto-date print compilations from other jurisdictions are maintained in very few law libraries.\n\xc2\xa7 2-320-1(a) Example\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C)(ii).\n\nPrinciple 1: The core of a citation to a codified federal statutory provision consists of three\nelements:\nElement (a) -The title number followed by a space and "U.S.C." (for "United States Code")\n\xc2\xa7 2-320-1(b) Example\n\n24\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C)(ii).\n\nElement (b) - The section number preceded by the section symbol and space\n\xc2\xa7 2-320-1(c) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C)(ii).\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C)(xi) (2013) (added in 2010).\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 13925(a)(2) (2012) (amended in 2013).\n\nElement (c) \xe2\x80\x93 The date\nIf the provision being cited is currently in effect and has not been the subject of recent\nchange, no date element need be included. However, if the provision being cited has, by the\ntime of writing, been repealed or amended or if it has only recently been enacted, the date\nof a compilation that contains the language cited should be provided in parentheses. The\nprecise form this takes will be governed by the form in which that compilation presents its\ncutoff date.\nNo punctuation separates these elements. Nothing is italicized or underlined.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-335!\n\xc2\xa7 2-320-2(a) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Iowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1614.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Cal. Prob. Code \xc2\xa7 141.\n\nPrinciple 2: The core of a citation to a codified state statutory provision consists of the same\nbasic elements in a slightly different order. Unlike citations to the U.S. Code which begin\nwith a title number, references to most state codes lead off with the name of the state code\n(abbreviated):\nElement (a) - The name of the code (abbreviated)\n\xc2\xa7 2-320-2(b) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Iowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1614.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Cal. Prob. Code \xc2\xa7 141.\n\nElement (b) - The number of the section or part, using the division identifiers of the\njurisdiction\'s code (In some states major divisions of the code are designated by name\nrather than by number.)\n\n25\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-320-2(c) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\nIowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1614.\nIowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1606(1)(a) (2013).\nIowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1606(1)(a) (2011) (prior to 2013 amendment).\nCal. Prob. Code \xc2\xa7 13100 (2013).\nCal. Prob. Code \xc2\xa7 13100 (2010) (prior to 2011 amendment).\n\nElement (c) - The date\nIf the provision being cited is currently in effect and has not been the subject of recent\nchange, no date element need be included. However, if the provision being cited has, by the\ntime of writing, been repealed or amended or if it has only recently been enacted, the date\nof a compilation that contains the language cited should be provided in parentheses. The\nprecise form this takes will be governed by the form in which that compilation presents its\ncutoff date.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-335!\n\xc2\xa7 2-330. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional items\n\xc2\xa7 2-330(1) Examples\nOfficial:\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Iowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1614.\nUnofficial:\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C.A. \xc2\xa7 13925(a)(3) (Westlaw as amended, effective Oct. 1, 2013).\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C.S. \xc2\xa7 13925(a)(3) (LexisNexis current through Pub. L. No. 113-31).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Iowa Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 602.1606(1)(a) (Westlaw as amended, effective July 1, 2013).\n\nPrinciple 1: If possible, the reference should be to the jurisdiction\'s designated "official"\ncodification \xe2\x80\x93 such as the United States Code or Iowa Code. If an unofficial commercial\ncodification must be relied upon in order to reference a recent legislation change, it is\ncustomary to use that product\'s branded abbreviation if different from the official code\n(U.S.C.A. or U.S.C.S. rather than U.S.C.; Iowa Code Ann. rather than Iowa Code) and to\nplace the publisher\'s name, brand, or online source (abbreviated) ahead of the date\ninformation in a concluding parenthetical.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-335!\n\n26\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-330(2) Examples\nStatute not recently amended:\n\xe2\x80\x93 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(a).\nStatute recently amended:\n\xe2\x80\x93 Iowa Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 602.1606(1)(a) (Westlaw as amended, effective July 1, 2013).\nStatute cited to a version no longer in effect:\n\xe2\x80\x93 Cal. Prob. Code \xc2\xa7 13100 (2010) (prior to 2011 amendment).\n\nPrinciple 2: The reader of a statutory citation will expect that it refers to the statute as\ncurrently in force unless the reference says otherwise. If that is not the case or the provision\nhas only recently been enacted a date for the compilation relied upon should be furnished. The\nprecise form this takes will be governed by the form in which that compilation presents date\ninformation.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-335!\n\xc2\xa7 2-335. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-335(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Mich. Comp. Laws \xc2\xa7 x (year).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Ind. Code \xc2\xa7 x (year). [Publisher\'s brand and "Ann." omitted.]\n\nPoint 1: Both The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual direct a writer to cite to a\npublicly produced or supervised statutory compilation (generally referred to as an "official"\ncode) if the provisions referred to are contained in it. In other cases, conventional practice\nduring the print era, encouraged by the major publishers and reflected in both citation guides,\nwas to identify the publisher of a commercially produced statutory compilation, and, with the\ntwo principal annotated versions of the United States Code, to use abbreviations of their brand\nnames (U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S.). Especially, as sources and versions have multiplied, however,\nusage has moved toward the citing of statutes by means of their generic or "official"\ndesignation without regard to the source actually used by the writer. If followed rigorously,\nthis approach involves dropping the superfluous notation ("Ann."), which simply indicates\nthat the code relied upon was annotated, and leaving the publisher\'s name or brand out of the\nconcluding parentheses. The existence or nonexistence of annotations in the compilation\nrelied on by the writer has no bearing on the statutory language itself, and, as a consequence\nof the shifts in ownership and branding that have occurred in commercial law publishing and\nthe divergence between print and electronic versions of compilations bearing the same brand,\nreferences to "the publisher" are no longer straightforward.\nWhile this is the practice of nearly all appellate courts and most lawyers, neither The\nBluebook nor the ALWD Citation Manual goes so far. While both remove branding elements\nfrom the name of state (but not federal) statutory compilations, they still include references to\nthe publisher in a concluding parenthetical. The ALWD Citation Manual does so in all cases\nwhere multiple print editions exist, even if one of them is designated "official" by the state.\n27\n\n\x0cThe Bluebook omits designating the publisher when the version has been designated "official"\nby the state. Both manuals include "Ann." when the cited code is annotated.\nTo illustrate, the official compilation of Indiana statutes is regularly cited "Ind. Code \xc2\xa7 x."\nAccording to The Bluebook citations to the commercial compilation of Indiana statutes long\nknown as "Burns Indiana Statutes Annotated" should take the form "Ind. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 x\n(LexisNexis year)" while those to "West\'s Annotated Indiana Code" should read "Ind. Code\nAnn. \xc2\xa7 x (West year)." The ALWD Citation Manual treats the latter identically but, reflecting\nwhat turns out to have been a short-lived branding strategy of Reed Elsevier (the corporate\nparent of LexisNexis) would have citations to "Burns" (and U.S.C.S. plus many more)\nattributed to "Lexis." Currently, however, the online versions of "Burns" show the parent\nbrand "LexisNexis" prominently and indicate that copyright is held by Matthew Bender &\nCompany, "a member of the LexisNexis Group." Meanwhile, Thomson Reuters has returned\nto placing the brand "West" on its legal publications and services that, for a time, gave greater\nprominence to the Thomson name. Finally, the ALWD Citation Manual includes the publisher\n"Lexis" in citations to the Alaska Statutes ("Alaska Stat. \xc2\xa7 x (Lexis year)"), but The Bluebook\ndoes not ("Alaska Stat. \xc2\xa7 x (year)") since that compilation is official.\n\xc2\xa7 2-335(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Mich. Comp. Laws \xc2\xa7 x.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Ind. Code \xc2\xa7 x.\n\nPoint 2: While it is the practice in the opinions of and briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme\nCourt, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and a majority of state courts to omit any date element\nfrom statute citations unless the provisions have been or are likely to be subject to\namendment, both The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual call for the routine inclusion\nof the year or some alternative indication of the cited compilation\'s currency. Very likely this\nreflects the degree to which they remain bound by a print paradigm and their prime focus on\nlaw journal publication.\n\xc2\xa7 2-335(3) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 AS x. [Per Alaska Supreme Court citation practice when citing to Alaska Statutes.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 KRS x. [Per Kentucky Supreme Court citation practice when citing to Kentucky\nRevised Statutes.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 R.C. x. [Per Ohio Supreme Court citation practice when citing to Ohio Revised\nCode.]\n\nPoint 3: A standard and recurring component of state statute and regulation citations is an\nabbreviation of the state name. One area of citation practice on which there is widespread\nstate variation is the abbreviation of a state\'s code when cited by or to that state\xe2\x80\x99s own courts.\nThe abbreviations used on the examples in this introduction (\xc2\xa7 3-320), like the two dominant\nnational citation references, are full enough to distinguish unambiguously between a citation\nto a provision of the Alaska Statutes and one to a similarly numbered section of the codes of\nAlabama, Arizona and Arkansas. When context leaves little or no doubt about which state\'s\nstatutes are being cited, the case with briefs submitted to and decisions rendered by the courts\nof a particular state, significant citation space can saved with little or no loss by having the\n28\n\n\x0cstate name supplied by implication. In decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court and briefs\nsubmitted to it, "AS" is commonly used instead of "Alaska Stat."; in Kentucky it is\nunderstood that "KRS" stands for "Kentucky Revised Statutes" and not statutes of the state of\nKansas. At the extreme, this form of state-specific citation dialect leaves off all explicit\nreference to the state. A reference in an Ohio brief to "R.C." is understood as referring to\nOhio\'s "Revised Code"; one in a New York brief to a section of the "General Municipal Law"\nand one in a California brief to a section of the "Penal Code" are understood as referring to\nthe respective state\'s codified statutes.\n\xc2\xa7 2-340. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-340(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4.\n\xe2\x80\x93 House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-2,\nhttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ2/pdf/PLAW-110publ2.pdf.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Health Risk Limits for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate, 2007\nMinn. Laws ch. 37,\nhttps://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=37&doctype=Chapter&year=2007&type=0.\n\nSpecial Case 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Session Laws: Don\'t cite a statute to the session laws (the compiled\nenactments of a legislative body during a particular session) if a codified version will serve\nyour purposes. This principle confines session law citations to:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nvery recent enactments (provisions not yet codified even in supplements or pocket\nparts or online versions),\nenactments that are not codified because they are not of general applicability,\nsituations where the reference is to enactment itself or to provisions that have since\nbeen repealed or modified,\nprovisions that are so scattered across the code that a reference to the session laws is\nmore efficient, and\nthose rare cases in which the language in the codified version differs in some\nsignificant way from the session laws.\n\nA session law reference consists of: the name of the statute (or if not named "Act of [date]"),\nits public law number ("Pub. L. No.") or equivalent state designation, and the source. In the\ncase of a recent enactment this will most likely be electronic. See \xc2\xa7 2-110. Where a print\nsource is used the reference consists of a volume or year number followed by the name of the\npublication, abbreviated ("Stat." or "U.S.C.C.A.N." in the case of a federal act) and a page\nnumber. The year of enactment, in parentheses, is included in cases where that information is\nimportant and it has not already appeared as part of the name.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-335!\n\n29\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-340(2) Example\n\xe2\x80\x93 Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2003,\nH.R.2971, 108th Cong. \xc2\xa7 101.\n\nSpecial Case 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Bills: Bills are cited either when they support a point about the legislative\nhistory of an enactment or when the reference concerns proposed legislation that was not\nenacted.\n\xc2\xa7 2-340(3) Example\n\xe2\x80\x93 Social Security Act \xc2\xa7 205(a), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(a).\n\nSpecial Case 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Named Acts: Some statutes are commonly referred to by name, and in\nsome of these cases, section references from the original legislation are still widely used. Such\nreferences should never substitute for a core reference to the legislation as codified, but they\ncan be added to it.\n\xc2\xa7 2-340(4) Example\n\xe2\x80\x93 I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 6091.\n\nSpecial Case 4 \xe2\x80\x93 The Internal Revenue Code: An important exception to the general norms\nfor citation of federal statutes allows (but does not require) references to the Internal Revenue\nCode to be in the form: I.R.C. \xc2\xa7 ___. This is a substitute for 26 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 ___..\n\xc2\xa7 2-340(5) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.C.C. \xc2\xa7 2-202 (amended 2003).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Unif. Probate Code \xc2\xa7 2-107 (amended 1990), 8(I) U.L.A. 87 (1998).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Model Bus. Corp. Act \xc2\xa7 10.01 (2002).\n\nSpecial Case 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Uniform Acts and Model Codes: When a uniform act or model act or code\nhas been adopted by a state and is being referred to as the law of that state, it is cited like any\nother state law. When a reference is to the uniform law or model code apart from its adoption\nand interpretation in a particular state, the citation should consist of the name of the uniform\nlaw or code (as abbreviated), section number, and the year that law or code (or major subpart)\nwas promulgated or last amended. In the case of uniform laws a parallel citation to the\nUniform Laws Annotated (U.L.A.) may be helpful.\n\n30\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-350. Local Ordinance Citations [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-350 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Cincinnati, Ohio, Municipal Code \xc2\xa7 302-3.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Des Moines, Iowa, Municipal Code \xc2\xa7 8.04.040.\n\nOrdinances governing cities, towns, or counties are cited like statutes. Just as the standard\nform for a citation to a state statute includes the name of the state (abbreviated), an ordinance\ncitation is prefaced by the name of the political subdivision it governs.\n\xc2\xa7 2-360. Treaty Citations [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-360(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., art. 705(3), Dec. 17,\n1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989,\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 4.A.3, Aug.\n12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135.\n\nPrinciple 1: The core of a citation to a treaty, international convention, or other international\nagreement consists of three elements:\nElement (a) - The name of the treaty or agreement\nElement (b) - The date of signing or approval\nElement (c) - A source for the text likely to be accessible to the reader\n\xc2\xa7 2-360(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., art. 705(3), Dec. 17,\n1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989,\nhttp://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 4.A.3, Aug.\n12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135.\n\nPrinciple 2: Three additional elements may be appropriate:\nElement (a) - Conventions that are the product of an international organization should\neither include the organization\'s name as part of the name of the agreement or be preceded\nby that name.\n31\n\n\x0cElement (b) - So long as there are no more than three parties to the agreement, their names\n(abbreviated) should be listed, set off by commas and separated by hyphens, following the\nagreement\'s name.\nElement (c) - When citing to a portion of the agreement, the cited subdivision, as\ndesignated in the agreement, should be included directly following the treaty name and\nparties, if listed.\n\n32\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-400. How to Cite Regulations, Other Agency and Executive Material\n\nContents |\n\nIndex | Help | < | >\n\nRegulations and other agency material, particularly the output of state agencies, have become\ndramatically more accessible as print distribution has been supplemented or supplanted by\nonline dissemination. Print compilations of agency regulations in even the largest states\ntended to be expensive and hard to keep up-to-date, characteristics that confined them to large\nlaw libraries. Now most agency material is accessible on the Internet, much of it from public,\nnon-fee sources. Many adjudicative agencies are also now placing their decisions at a public\nWeb site. Greater accessibility should lead to more citation of this category of primary\nmaterial.\nThe relevant citation principles follow; section 3-400 provides both basic examples and\nsamples from all major U.S. jurisdictions.\nFor a quick start introduction or review, there is also a companion video tutorial, \xe2\x80\x9cCiting\nAgency Material ... in Brief\xe2\x80\x9d:\nhttp://www.access-to-law.com/citation/videos/citing_agency_material.html.\nIt runs 12 minutes.\n\xc2\xa7 2-410. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form [BB|ALWD]\nLike statutes, agency regulations are cited to codifications if possible.\n\xc2\xa7 2-410(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n20\n49\n20\n20\n\nC.F.R.\nC.F.R.\nC.F.R.\nC.F.R.\n\n\xc2\xa7\n\xc2\xa7\n\xc2\xa7\n\xc2\xa7\n\n404.260.\n236.403.\n404.1520(h) (2013) (added in 2012).\n404.1520(a)(4) (2012) (amended in 2012).\n\nPrinciple 1: The core of a citation to a codified federal regulation consists of three elements:\nElement (a) - The title number followed by a space and "C.F.R." (for "Code of Federal\nRegulations")\nElement (b) - The section number preceded by the section symbol and a space\nElement (c) - The date\nIf the provision being cited is currently in effect and has not been the subject of recent\nchange, no date element need be included. However, if the provision being cited has, by the\ntime of writing, been repealed or amended or if it has only recently been enacted, the date\nof a compilation that contains the language cited should be provided in parentheses. The\nprecise form this takes will be governed by the form in which that compilation presents its\ncutoff date.\n33\n\n\x0cNo punctuation separates these elements. Nothing is italicized or underlined.\n\n34\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-410(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Code Me. R. 12 170 7 \xc2\xa7 5,\nhttp://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/12/170/170c007.doc.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Minn. R. 3050.2600, http://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=3050.2600.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Tex. Admin. Code tit. 40, \xc2\xa7 705.3101 (2012 effective Sept. 1),\nhttp://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.viewtac.\n\nPrinciple 2: The core of a citation to a codified state regulation consists of comparable\nelements, in slightly different order and adjusted to the nomenclature of the particular\ncodification. Unlike citations to the C.F.R. which begin with a title number, references to\nmost state codes lead off with the name of the state code (abbreviated). If the reader may not\nbe familiar with how to access the code and it is online (as most state codes now are), a\nparallel electronic citation may be useful. See \xc2\xa7 2-110.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-415!\n\xc2\xa7 2-415. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-415 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 8 AAC 15.160. [Per Alaska Supreme Court citation practice when citing to Alaska\nAdministrative Code.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 405 KAR 1:120. [Per Kentucky Supreme Court citation practice when citing to\nKentucky Administrative Regulations Service.]\n\nPoint 1: State regulations are even more rarely cited outside their state of origin than state\nstatutes are. Consequently, their abbreviations according to settled usage within a state often\nfill in the full identification of that state by implication. This is also true with statutes. (See \xc2\xa7\n2-335(3).) Thus, while The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for Alaska regulations\nto be cited to "Alaska Admin. Code tit. x, \xc2\xa7 y (year)," in decisions of the Alaska Supreme\nCourt and briefs submitted to it, an Alaska regulation will typically be cited "[title] AAC\n[section]."\n\xc2\xa7 2-420. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-420 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Authorization of Representative Fees, 74 Fed. Reg. 48381, 48384 (Sept. 23, 2009)\n(amending 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 404.1720).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the\n698-806 MHz Band, 75 Fed. Reg. 3639 (Jan. April 22, 2010) (amending 47 C.F.R. pt.\n15).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Adopted Permanent Rules Relating to Telephone Assistance Plans, 34 Minn. Reg.\n818 (Dec. 7, 2009) (to be codified at Minn. R. 7817.0400).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual \xc2\xa7 3E1.1 (2012).\n\n35\n\n\x0cSpecial Case 1: Federal regulations not yet codified or citations to a regulation as originally\npromulgated are cited to the Federal Register (Fed. Reg.), preceded by name or title of the\nregulations. If the regulation is to be codified in C.F.R., the location where it will appear or\nthe portion it amends should, in most cases, be furnished parenthetically.\nSpecial Case 2: State regulations not yet codified or citations to regulations as originally\npromulgated are cited to an equivalent publication or Web site.\nSpecial Case 3: Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which are not codified in C.F.R., are cited to\nthe manual in which they are published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.\n\xc2\xa7 2-450. Agency Adjudication Citations [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-450 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 National Treasury Empls. Union, Chapter 65, 57 F.L.R.A. No. 3 (Mar. 12, 2001).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Altercare of Hartville, 321 N.L.R.B. 847 (1996).\n\xe2\x80\x93 H H 3 Trucking Inc., 345 N.L.R.B. No. 59 (Sept. 15, 2005),\nhttp://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458007a338.\n\nAgency adjudications are cited the same as judicial opinions (cases) (see \xc2\xa7 2-200) with the\nfollowing differences of detail:\nPrinciple 1: Names are not italicized or underlined.\nPrinciple 2: The cited name is that of the first private party only (abbreviated as with\njudicial opinions), or the official subject-matter title, omitting all procedural phrases. (If\nthe procedural posture of the case is important information it can be summarized in a\nparenthetical phrase following the date.)\nPrinciple 3: The agency\'s official reporter is cited whenever possible. If no official reporter\ncitation is available, the decision is cited with agency\'s assigned identification number and\nfull date, plus a parallel citation to an electronic source, an unofficial reporter or service if\npossible.\nPrinciple 4: If the name of the agency is not adequately revealed by the name of the\nreporter, it should be included (abbreviated) in the parentheses ahead of the date.\n\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-455!\n\n36\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-455. Agency Adjudication Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation\nPractice\n\xc2\xa7 2-455 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Natl. Treas. Empls. Union, Chapter 65 v. IRS, 57 F.L.R.A. No. 3 (Mar. 12, 2001).\n[Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Altercare of Hartville, 321 N.L.R.B. 847 (1996). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 H H 3 Trucking Inc., 345 N.L.R.B. No. 59 (Sept. 15, 2005),\nhttp://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458007a338. [Per the ALWD\nCitation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: The ALWD Citation Manual calls for a format more tightly analogous to that\nemployed for judicial opinions, including the italicizing of party names.\n\xc2\xa7 2-470. Agency Report Citations [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-470 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93 1981 S.E.C. Ann. Rep. 21.\n\xe2\x80\x93 U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, GAO-02-802, SSA: Enhanced Procedures and\nGuidance Could Improve Service and Reduce Overpayments to Concurrent\nBeneficiaries 11 (2002).\n\nPrinciple 1: Citations to agency reports, published periodically in volumes, take the same\nform as journal articles (see \xc2\xa7 2-800).\nPrinciple 2: Citations to agency reports that are titled and disseminated separately take the\nsame form as books by institutional authors (see \xc2\xa7 2-720(1)). Where the agency numbers its\nreports, as does the U.S. Government Accountability Office (formerly the General\nAccounting Office) that designation should be included as part of the title.\n\xc2\xa7 2-480. Citations to Executive Orders and Proclamations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common\nForm [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-480(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Exec. Order No. 12,893, 59 Fed. Reg. 4233 (Jan. 31, 1994).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Proclamation No. 7202, 3 C.F.R. 48 (2000).\n\nPrinciple 1: The core of a citation to a federal executive order or presidential proclamation\nconsists of four elements:\nElement (a) - The designation "Exec. Order" or "Proclamation" followed by a space and\n"No." (for number)\n37\n\n\x0cElement (b) - The order or proclamation number followed by a comma and space\nElement (c) - A citation to the Federal Register in which the order or proclamation was\npublished (see \xc2\xa7 2-420) or if it is likely to be more accessible the Code of Federal\nRegulations edition into which it was compiled (i.e. that for the following year) followed\nby a space\nElement (d) - The date or year in parentheses (the date of the Federal Register publication\nor the year of the C.F.R. compilation, not the date of the order or proclamation)\n\xc2\xa7 2-480(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, Exec. Order No. 12,893, 59 Fed.\nReg. 4233 (Jan. 31, 1994), http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executiveorders/pdf/12893.pdf.\n\xe2\x80\x93 To Eliminate Circumvention of the Quantitative Limitations Applicable to Imports of\nWheat Gluten, Proclamation No. 7202, 3 C.F.R. 48 (2000),\nhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_cfr_3v1&docid=3CFR7202.pdf.\n\nPrinciple 2: Two additional elements may be appropriate:\nElement (a) - The core elements can be preceded by the title of the order or proclamation\nfollowed by a comma and space\nElement (b) - With recent documents a parallel electronic citation may be useful; all\nexecutive orders and proclamations from 1993 on are accessible online. See \xc2\xa7 2-110.\n\xc2\xa7 2-480(3) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Mich. Exec. Order No. 2003-4 (Feb. 27, 2003),\nhttp://www.michigan.gov/granholm/0,4587,7-168-21975-62542--,00.html.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Ill. Exec. Order No. 2003-6 (Feb. 7, 2003),\nhttp://www2.illinois.gov/Government/ExecOrders/Documents/2003/\nexecorder2003-6.pdf.\n\nPrinciple 3: The core of a citation to a state governor\'s executive order or proclamation\nconsists of comparable elements preceded by the state abbreviation, adjusted to the\nnomenclature of the particular compilation in which it appears (if any).\n\n38\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-485. Citations to Executive Orders and Proclamations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference\nin Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-485 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Exec. Order No. 12,893, 59 Fed. Reg. 4233 (Jan. 31, 1994). [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Proclamation No. 7202, 3 C.F.R. 48 (2000), available at\nhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_cfr_3v1&docid=3CFR7202.pdf. [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, Exec. Or. 12893, 59 Fed. Reg.\n4233 (Jan. 31, 1994). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 To Eliminate Circumvention of the Quantitative Limitations Applicable to Imports of\nWheat Gluten, Exec. Proc. 7202, 3 C.F.R. 48 (1999) (available at\nhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_cfr_3v1&docid=3CFR7202.pdf). [Per the ALWD\nCitation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: The ALWD Citation Manual calls for slightly different designations of orders and\nproclamations, omits the abbreviation "No." and does not place commas in the numbers. It\nalso places the title of the order or proclamation in italics, when included, and treats parallel\nInternet citations slightly differently.\n\xc2\xa7 2-490. Citations to Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions \xe2\x80\x93 Most\nCommon Form [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-490(1) Examples:\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n38 Op. Att\'y Gen. 98 (1934).\nOp. Off. Legal Counsel (Aug. 10, 2005).\n86 Cal. Att\'y Gen. Op. No. 03-105 (June 19, 2003).\n90 Md. Att\'y Gen. Op. 17 (2005).\n\nPrinciple 1: The core of a citation to an advisory opinion by the U.S. Attorney General, state\ncounterparts, and similar legal officers consists of two sets of elements:\nElement (a) - The name of the office issuing the opinion (abbreviated) and the abbreviation\n"Op."\nElement (b) - A volume and page number followed by the year if the opinion has been\npublished. The opinion number, if any, and full date if it has not been.\n\n39\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-490(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Authority Under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act to Close or Realign\nNational Guard Installations Without the Consent of State Governors, Op. Off. Legal\nCounsel (Aug. 10, 2005),\nhttp://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/050810_brac_opinion.pdf.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Hearing Conducted by Local Board Under Ed \xc2\xa74-205(c) Is a Quasi-Judicial Function\nto Which the Open Meetings Act Does Not Apply, 90 Md. Att\'y Gen. Op. 17 (2005),\nhttp://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2005/90oag17.pdf.\n\nPrinciple 2: Two additional additional elements may be appropriate:\nElement (a) - The core elements can be preceded by the title of the opinion followed by a\ncomma and space\nElement (b) - With recent opinions a parallel electronic citation may be useful. See \xc2\xa7 2110.\n\xc2\xa7 2-490(3) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 86 Cal. Att\'y Gen. Op. No. 03-105 (June 19, 2003).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Hearing Conducted by Local Board Under Ed \xc2\xa74-205(c) Is a Quasi-Judicial Function\nto Which the Open Meetings Act Does Not Apply, 90 Md. Att\'y Gen. Op. 17 (2005).\n\nPrinciple 3: The core of a citation to a state officer\'s advisory opinion consists of the same\nelements as citations to those of federal officers; however, the office name is preceded by the\nstate abbreviation and the abbreviation "Op." is shifted to the end.\n\n40\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-495. Citations to Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions \xe2\x80\x93 Points of\nDifference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-495 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Authority Under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act to Close or Realign\nNational Guard Installations Without the Consent of State Governors, Op. Off. Legal\nCounsel (Aug. 10, 2005), available at\nhttp://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/050810_brac_opinion.pdf. [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 86 Cal. Att\'y Gen. Op. No. 03-105 (June 19, 2003), available at\nhttp://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/03-105.pdf. [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Hearing Conducted by Local Board Under Ed \xc2\xa74-205(c) Is a Quasi-Judicial Function\nto Which the Open Meetings Act Does Not Apply, 90 Md. Att\'y Gen. Op. 17 (2005),\navailable at http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2005/90oag17.pdf. [Per The\nBluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Authority Under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act to Close or Realign\nNational Guard Installations Without the Consent of State Governors, Op. Off. Legal\nCounsel (Aug. 10, 2005) (available at\nhttp://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/050810_brac_opinion.pdf). [Per the ALWD Citation\nManual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 86 Cal. Att\'y Gen. Op. 03-105 (June 19, 2003) (available at\nhttp://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/03-105.pdf). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Hearing Conducted by Local Board Under Ed \xc2\xa74-205(c) Is a Quasi-Judicial Function\nto Which the Open Meetings Act Does Not Apply, 90 Md. Att\'y Gen. Op. 17 (2005)\n(available at http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2005/90oag17.pdf). [Per the\nALWD Citation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: The ALWD Citation Manual omits the abbreviation "No.", places the title of the\nopinion in italics, when included, and treats parallel Internet citations slightly differently.\n\xc2\xa7 2-500. How to Cite Arbitration Decisions [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-500 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 FAA v. NATCA, 2009 WL 2380087 (May 22, 2009) (Bierig, Arb.).\n\xe2\x80\x93 United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations," World Trade\nOrganization No. 108 (Aug. 30, 2002) (Falconer, Chambovey & Seung Wha Chang,\nArbs.).\n\nPrinciple 1: Citations to arbitration decisions or awards take the same form as court cases if\nthe adversarial parties are named. See \xc2\xa7 2-210.\nPrinciple 2: Citations to arbitration decisions or awards take the same form as administrative\nadjudications if the adversarial parties are not named. See \xc2\xa7 2-450.\nPrinciple 3: In either case the citation should include one additional information item \xe2\x80\x93 the\narbitrator\'s last name \xe2\x80\x93 in parentheses at the end of the citation.\n41\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-600. How to Cite Court Rules [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-600 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).\nFed. R. Crim. P. 7(b).\nHaw. Fam. Ct. R. 106.\nN.J. Ct. R. 3:8-3.\n\nPrinciple: Rules of evidence or procedure are cited by name of the set of rules (beginning\nwith the jurisdiction) and the rule number. The name is abbreviated. According to The\nBluebook, the current edition of the ALWD Citation Manual, and widespread practice, no date\nneed be included so long as the citation\'s reference is to the rule currently in effect.\n\n42\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-700. How to Cite Books\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThe relevant citation principles follow; section 3-700 provides basic examples.\n\xc2\xa7 2-710. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-710(a) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 2 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions \xc2\xa7 12.3 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Henry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators 290-95 (5th ed. 2008).\n\nPrinciple: A standard book citation consists of the following elements (in order):\nElement (a) - The volume number (if it is a multi-volume work)\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-715(1)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-710(b) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n2 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions \xc2\xa7 12.3 (1991).\nHenry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators 290-95 (5th ed. 2008).\nWayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law \xc2\xa7 5.4 (2d ed. 1986).\nEugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws \xc2\xa7 13.20, n.10 (5th ed. 2010).\n\nElement (b) - The full name of the author(s) followed by a comma\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWorks by more than two authors are cited using the first author\'s name and "et al."\nunless the inclusion of the other authors\' names is significant.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Works by two authors are cited using both names separated by "&".\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Each author\'s full name should be given as it appears on the publication, but\nomitting any appended titles or academic degrees, such as Prof. or Ph.D.\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-715(2)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-710(c) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n2 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions \xc2\xa7 12.3 (1991).\nHenry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators 290-95 (5th ed. 2008).\nWayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law \xc2\xa7 5.4 (2d ed. 1986).\nEugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws \xc2\xa7 13.20, n. 10 (5th ed. 2010).\n\nElement (c) - Title (italicized or underlined), with all words other than prepositions and\nconjunctions begun with a capital letter\n\n43\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-710(d) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n2 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions \xc2\xa7 12.3 (1991).\nHenry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators 290-95 (5th ed. 2008).\nWayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law \xc2\xa7 5.4 (2d ed. 1986).\nEugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws \xc2\xa7 13.20, n. 10 (5th ed. 2010).\n\nElement (d) - Cited portion(s) of the book indicated by section, paragraph, or page\nnumber.\n\xc2\xa7 2-710(e) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n2 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions \xc2\xa7 12.3 (1991).\nHenry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators 290-95 (5th ed. 2008).\nWayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law \xc2\xa7 5.4 (2d ed. 1986).\nEugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws \xc2\xa7 13.20, n. 10 (5th ed. 2010).\n\nElement (e) - Parentheses containing the edition number (if there have been multiple\neditions) and year of publication.\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-715(3)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-715. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-715 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions vol. 2, \xc2\xa7 12.3 (Little, Brown & Co. 1991).\n[Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Eugene F. Scoles, Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers & Symeon C. Symeonides,\nConflict of Laws \xc2\xa7 13.20, n. 10 (5th ed., West 2010). [Per the ALWD Citation\nManual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Henry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents, and Senators 290-95 (5th ed.,\nRowman & Littlefield 2008). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: While longstanding conventional practice, as reflected in The Bluebook, is to place\nthe volume number of a multi-volume work before the author\'s name, the ALWD Citation\nManual calls for a volume number to be placed following the title with the other subdivision\ninformation.\nPoint 2: The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual call for the same treatment of multiple\nauthors. The former more than the latter, however, indicates a presumption that with more\nthan two authors "et al." should be used.\nPoint 3: The ALWD Citation Manual calls for routine inclusion of the publisher\'s name\n(abbreviated) in the parentheses, before the year of publication. Where there is an edition\nnumber the publisher\'s name follows it, separated by a comma. The Bluebook directs insertion\n44\n\n\x0cof the publisher\'s name only when that is necessary in order to distinguish different publishers\'\neditions.\n\xc2\xa7 2-720. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Enron Corp., 2000 Annual Report 30 (2001).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Nolan J. Malone, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Evaluating Components of\nInternational Migration: Consistency of 2000 Nativity Data (2001).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Research & Pub. Policy Dep\'t, Nat\'l Urban League, The Impact of Social Security on\nChild Poverty 5 (2000).\n\nSpecial Case 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Works by Institutional Authors: [BB|ALWD]\nWorks by institutional authors are cited like books by individuals with the name of the\ninstitution substituting for the name of an individual author. If an individual author is credited\nfor the work along with the institution, both are listed with the individual author coming first.\nWhere multiple units or division of the institution are listed on the work, the citation includes\nthe smallest unit first and then skips to the largest, omitting all in between. In cases where an\nindividual author is cited, the name of that author substitutes for the smallest unit.\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(2) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Vill. of Grand View v. Skinner, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20120 (2d Cir.\nOct. 24, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Norling v. Valley Contracting, [2 Wages-Hours] Lab. L. Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 35,543\n(D.N.D. June 11, 1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Flamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, [Insurance] Auto. L. Rep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 18,307 (Neb. Nov.\n8, 1991).\n\nSpecial Case 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Services: [BB|ALWD]\nCompilations organized around specialized fields include a wide variety of material, ranging\nfrom statutes to brief commentary. They are a frequent source of otherwise unpublished\ncases.\nCitations to material in such a service include the name or title of the cited document in\naccordance with the rules applicable to its type (cases, administrative material, etc.). The\nportion of the citation identifying the document\'s address in the service includes: volume,\nabbreviated title (not italicized), publisher in parentheses, subdivision. In cases where the\nvolume designation is not simply a number it should be placed in brackets to separate it from\nthe work\'s title. The date accompanying the citation (in most cases, at the end, in parentheses)\nis the full date of the cited document.\n\n45\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-720(3) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Restatement (Second) of Contracts \xc2\xa7 30 (1981).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Restatement (Second) of Judgments \xc2\xa7 57 cmt. b, illus. 3 (1982).\n\nSpecial Case 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Restatements: [BB|ALWD]\nRestatements are not attributed to an author; they are cited simply by name, subdivision, and\nyear.\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(4) Example\n\xe2\x80\x93 Francis M. Dougherty, Annotation, Insurer\'s Tort Liability for Wrongful or Negligent\nIssuance of Life Policy, 37 A.L.R.4th 972, 974 (1985).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Francis M. Dougherty, Annotation, Insurer\'s Tort Liability for Wrongful or Negligent\nIssuance of Life Policy, 37 A.L.R.4th 972, at \xc2\xa7 1 (1985).\n\nSpecial Case 4 \xe2\x80\x93 Annotations: [BB|ALWD]\nAnnotations in the American Law Reports (A.L.R.) are treated as articles in a collection or\njournal. Since the online versions in LexisNexis and Westlaw fail to show original interior\npagination, they require the use of section numbers in any pinpoint reference.\n\n46\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-800. How to Cite Articles and Other Law Journal Writing\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThe relevant citation principles follow; section 3-800 provides both basic examples and\nfurther samples from a diversity of major U.S. law journals.\n\xc2\xa7 2-810. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 2-810(a) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short\nStatutes of Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753\n(1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence\non Child Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary\nExecutive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Thomas L. Irving et al., The Significant Federal Circuit Cases Interpreting \xc2\xa7112, 41\nAm. U. L. Rev. 621 (1992).\n- Frank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\n\nPrinciple: The components of a journal article citation are, in order:\nElement (a) -The full name of the contributing author followed by a comma\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWorks by more than two authors are cited using the first author\'s name and "et al."\nunless the inclusion of the other authors\' names is significant.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Works by two authors are cited using both names separated by "&".\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Middle names are NOT reduced to initials unless that is how they appear in the\noriginal work.\n\xc2\xa7 2-810(b) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short\nStatutes of Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753\n(1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence\non Child Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary\nExecutive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Frank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\n\nElement (b) - The article title in full (italicized or underlined) followed by a comma, with\nall words other than prepositions and conjunctions begun with a capital letter\n\n47\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-810(c) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short\nStatutes of Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753\n(1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence\non Child Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary\nExecutive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Frank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\n\nElement (c) - The volume number\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIf the journal has no separate volume number but is paginated consecutively through\na year\'s issues use the year as the volume number.\n\xc2\xa7 2-810(d) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short\nStatutes of Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753\n(1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence\non Child Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary\nExecutive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Frank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\n\nElement (d) - The journal name (abbreviated)\n\xc2\xa7 2-810(e) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short\nStatutes of Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753\n(1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence\non Child Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary\nExecutive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Frank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\n\n48\n\n\x0cElement (e) - The page number(s)\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nThe first page of the article always appears.\nIf the citation is to a portion of the article, those pages should be listed as well, set\noff from the first page with a comma.\n\xc2\xa7 2-810(f) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 James Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short\nStatutes of Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753\n(1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence\non Child Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary\nExecutive, Plural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Frank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\n\nElement (f) - The year of publication in parentheses (unless it is contained in the volume\nnumber)\n\xc2\xa7 2-820. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases [BB|ALWD]\nJournal material other than articles by contributing authors is cited in similar form with the\nfollowing differences of detail:\n\xc2\xa7 2-820(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 John Moustakas, Note, Group Rights in Cultural Property: Justifying Strict\nInalienability, 74 Cornell L. Rev. 1179, 1183 n.12 (1989).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Helen L. Parise, Comment, The Proper Extension of Tort Liability Principles in the\nManaged Care Industry, 64 Temple L. Rev. 977 (1991).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Brian Victor, Case Comment, The Citizen and the Serpent: State v. Rockholt and\nEntrapment in New Jersey, 38 Rutgers L. Rev. 589 (1986).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Betsy Vencil, Comment, 26 Nat. Resources J. 606 (1986).\n\nSpecial Case 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Student Writing by a Named Student:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nThe category or type of piece is added after author\'s name (set off by commas).\nThe piece is identified only by category if there is no title or only a long digest-like\nheading.\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-825(1)!\n\n49\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-820(2) Examples:\n\xe2\x80\x93 Note, Computer Intellectual Property and Conceptual Severance, 103 Harv. L. Rev.\n1046, 1057 (1990).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Book Note, Selling One\'s Birth Rights, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 1074 (1989) (reviewing\nMartha A. Field, Surrogate Motherhood (1988)).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Recent Development, 1979 Wash. U. L.Q. 1161, 1164.\n\nSpecial Case 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Unsigned Student Writing:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nThe category or type of piece is indicated where author\'s name would appear.\nThe piece is identified only by category if there is no title or only a long digest-like\nheading.\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-825(1)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-820(3) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 John M. Balkin, Nested Opposition, 99 Yale L.J. 1669 (1990) (reviewing John M.\nEllis, Against Deconstruction (1989)).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Anthony E. Cook, The Temptation and Fall of Original Understanding, 1990 Duke\nL.J. 1163 (book review).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Book Note, Selling One\'s Birth Rights, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 1074 (1989) (reviewing\nMartha A. Field, Surrogate Motherhood (1988)).\n\nSpecial Case 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Book Reviews:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIf the review is by an author who is not student editor, the core citation is followed by\na parenthetical simply identifying the piece as a book review or indicating the work\nreviewed.\nIf the review by a student editor, it is cited like other student journal writing and given\nthe category "Book Note".\n\xc2\xa1But see \xc2\xa7 2-825(1)!\n\xc2\xa7 2-820(4) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Charles Nesson, Agent Orange Meets the Blue Bus: Factfinding at the Frontiers of\nKnowledge, 66 B.U. L. Rev. 521 (1986). [Part of a symposium]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Project, Nineteenth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: United States Supreme\nCourt and Court of Appeals 1988-1989, 78 Geo. L.J. 699 (1990).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Symposium, Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence, 66 B.U. L. Rev. 377\n(1986).\n\n50\n\n\x0cSpecial Case 4 \xe2\x80\x93 Symposia and the Like:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nArticles that are part of a symposium or survey are cited independently unless the\nname of the symposium must be added to the title of the article for its scope to be\nclear.\nIf the symposium or survey is cited as a unit, include the appropriate category label\nbefore the title of the unit unless the title already includes the term.\n\xc2\xa7 2-820(5) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 John D. Feerick, Dedication, George Bundy Smith - A Good Lawyer, 68 Alb. L. Rev.\n207 (2005).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Jamin B. Raskin, Tribute, Burton D. Wechsler, Scholar of Struggle, 52 Am. U. L.\nRev. 9 (2002).\n\xe2\x80\x93 C. Edwin Baker, Commentary, Media Structure, Ownership Policy, and the First\nAmendment, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 733 (2005).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Tribute, John L. Garvey, 49 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1999).\n\nSpecial Case 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Tributes, Dedications and Other Specially Labeled Articles:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWith articles carrying a designation like "Tribute," "Dedication," or "Commentary,"\nthat label should be added after author\'s name (set off by commas).\nIf there is no named author, the designation is indicated where the author\'s name\nwould appear.\n\xc2\xa7 2-820(6) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Michael Heise, Are Single-sex Schools Inherently Unequal?, Cornell L.F.,\nFall/Winter 2004, at 6, 7.\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steve Weinberg, Missing and Presumed Murdered, A.B.A. J., Sept. 1995, at 62.\n\nSpecial Case 6 \xe2\x80\x93 Articles in Journals with Separate Pagination in Each Issue:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWith articles appearing in journals that have separate, nonconsecutive pagination in\neach issue or in special issues that are separately paginated, the volume number is not\nindicated, but the issue is identified by the date, as it appears on the cover, set off by\ncommas, following the journal name.\nPage numbers, preceded by the word "at," follow the issue date.\n\n51\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-825. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Points of Difference in Citation Practice\n\xc2\xa7 2-825 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 John Moustakas, Note, Group Rights in Cultural Property: Justifying Strict\nInalienability, 74 Cornell L. Rev. 1179, 1183 n.12 (1989). [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 John Moustakas, Student Author, Group Rights in Cultural Property: Justifying\nStrict Inalienability, 74 Cornell L. Rev. 1179, 1183 n.12 (1989). [Per the ALWD\nCitation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 John D. Feerick, Dedication, George Bundy Smith - A Good Lawyer, 68 Alb. L. Rev.\n207 (2005). [Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 John D. Feerick, George Bundy Smith - A Good Lawyer, 68 Alb. L. Rev. 207\n(2005). [Per the ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steve Weinberg, Missing and Presumed Murdered, A.B.A. J., Sept. 1995, at 62.\n[Per The Bluebook.]\n\xe2\x80\x93 Steve Weinberg, Missing and Presumed Murdered, 81 ABA J. 62 (Sept. 1995). [Per\nthe ALWD Citation Manual.]\n\nPoint 1: Instead of distinguishing student writing by following the author\'s name with a\nspecific category or type label such as "Note" the ALWD Citation Manual calls for use of the\ngeneric label "Student Author".\nPoint 2: The ALWD Citation Manual does not call for the inclusion of an article\'s special\ndesignation in its citation.\nPoint 3: With separately paginated issues, the ALWD Citation Manual does not leave off the\nvolume number or move the page number to a different location, but identifies the issue by\nthe date or number appearing on the cover, in the concluding parentheses. (It also abbreviates\nthe American Bar Association as "ABA" rather than "A.B.A.")\n\n52\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 2-900. How to Cite Documents from Earlier Stages of the Same Case\n[BB|ALWD] Contents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-900 Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\xe2\x80\x93\n\n(R. at 30.)\n(Smith Aff. \xc2\xb6 6.)\n(Compl. \xc2\xb6 10.)\n(Horn Dep. 99:23-101:5, July 22, 2005, ECF No. 22.)\n\nReferences to the record and other case documents in a brief or memorandum are placed in\nparentheses. The document\'s name is not italicized or underlined, but initial letters are\ncapitalized. Standard abbreviations (\xc2\xa7 4-900) exist for many of the document types. Pinpoint\ncitations are indicated using the division (paragraph, number, page) of the document in\nquestion. Citation to a particular page (or range of page numbers) in the record is,\ncustomarily, preceded by the word "at" followed by the page number. The date of the event is\nfurnished with depositions, trial testimony, and in other situations where it will aid the reader.\nWhen the document is held in a court case management system like the federal courts\'\nCM/ECF which assigns document numbers that designation should also be included.\n\n53\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-000. EXAMPLES \xe2\x80\x93 CITATIONS OF ...\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-100. Electronic Sources\n\xc2\xa7 3-110. Electronic Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Core Elements\nIllustrations\n\nAmerican Bar Association, Section on Legal Education and\nAdmissions to the Bar, Statistics, available at\nhttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_eduation/resource\ns/statistics.html (last visited Aug. 28, 2013).\nDep\'t of Veterans Affairs, M21-1, The Adjudiciation\nDivision \xc2\xa7 2.03 (LexisNexis Veterans Benefits Manual and\nRelated Laws and Regulations CD-ROM, 2012).\n\xc2\xa7 3-200. Judicial Opinions\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-210. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\nIllustrations\n\nWilson v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 150 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir.\n1998).\nMeier v. Said, 2007 ND 18, \xc2\xb6 22, 726 N.W.2d 852.\nFor short form examples see \xc2\xa7 6-520.\nAdditional Examples\nFull Range of: Federal Court Decisions | State Court Decisions\nFederal Case Citations:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSupreme Court\nCourts of Appeals\nCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\nDistrict Courts\nBankruptcy Courts and Bankruptcy Panels\n54\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCourt of Federal Claims\nTax Court\nMilitary Service Courts of Criminal Appeals\n\nSupreme Court\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBrown v. Helvering, 291 U.S. 193, 203 (1934).\nJohn Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 159-60 (1934) (Stevens, J.,\ndissenting).\nCornish v. D.C. Bd. on Prof\'l Responsibility, 117 S. Ct. 547, 136 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1996).\nCammisano v. U.S. Senate Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 454 U.S. 1084\n(1981).\nOffice of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990).\nScott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007).\nLawrence v. Florida, 166 L. Ed. 2d 924 (2007).\nScott v. Harris, 75 U.S.L.W. 4297 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007).\n\nCourts of Appeals\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nShames v. Cal. Travel & Tourism Op. Comm\xe2\x80\x99n, 607 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2010).\nAntonov v. Cnty. of Los Angeles Dep\'t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 103 F.3d 137 (9th Cir. 1996).\nChatchka v. Soc\'y for Concerned Citizens Interested in Equal., 69 F.3d 666 (5th Cir.\n1996).\nComm. to Prevent Mun. Bankr. v. Renne, 77 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1996).\nCong. Fin. v. Commercial Tech., Inc., 74 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 1995).\nShoemaker v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Med. Educ., 87 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir.\n1996).\nNatural Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 216 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 2000).\nWilson v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 150 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998).\nPhillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1999).\nGrace Bible Fellowship, Inc. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 5, 941 F.2d 45 (1st Cir. 1991).\nA.B.C. Bus Lines v. Urban Mass Transp. Admin., 831 F.2d 360 (1st Cir. 1987).\nOrange Cnty. Agric. Soc\'y, Inc. v. Comm\'r, 893 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1990).\nShiau v. U.S. Dep\'t of Agric., 895 F.2d 1410 (2d Cir. 1989).\nS\'holders v. Sound Radio, 109 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1997).\nBarry v. Bergen Cnty. Prob. Dep\'t, 128 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 1997).\nTillman v. Lebanon Cnty. Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2000).\nJohnstone v. N. Am. Van Lines, 958 F.2d 363 (3d Cir. 1992).\nOpticians Ass\'n of Am. v. Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1990).\nLittle Princess Assocs. v. Passgo, Inc. 922 F.2d 832 (3d Cir. 1990).\nPhiladelphia Marine Trade Ass\'n v. Local 1242, Int\'l Longshoremen\'s Ass\'n, 915 F.2d\n1561 (3d Cir. 1990).\nS.C. State Ports Auth. v. NLRB, 914 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1990).\nGulf Atl., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 878 F.2d 1430 (4th Cir. 1989).\nStewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.\n2000).\nCobb v. Delta Exps., Inc., 186 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 1999).\nMoore v. U.S. Auto. Ass\'n, 800 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987).\nBAW Mfg. Co. v. Slaks Fifth Ave., Ltd., 547 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1977).\nUnited States ex rel. Interstate Mech. Contrs., Inc. v. Int\'l Fid. Ins. Co., 200 F.3d 456 (6th\nCir. 2000).\nWooddell v. Int\'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 71, 907 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1990), rev\'d 112\nS. Ct. 494 (1991).\nNLRB v. Dist. 29, 921 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1990).\n\n55\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSchoonover v. Black Bros. Co., 914 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1990).\nBuchanan v. Apfel, 249 F.3d 485, 2001 FED App. 0138P (6th Cir.).\nKennedy v. Nat\'l Juvenile Det. Ass\'n, 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999).\nTravis v. Gary Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 921 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112\nS. Ct. 60 (1991).\nA.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Pub. Bldg. Comm\'n, 921 F.2d 118 (7th Cir. 1990).\nTrs. of Cent. States Health & Welfare Fund v. Lamberti, 878 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1989).\nHair v. Helena Chem. Co., 915 F.2d 1579 (8th Cir. 1990).\nMo. Hous. Dev. Comm\'n v. Brice, 919 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir. 1990).\nArk. State Bank Comm\'r v. Resolution Trust Corp., 911 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1990).\nCrain v. Bd. of Police Comm\'rs of the Metro. Police Dep\'t, 920 F.2d 1402 (8th Cir. 1990).\nAm. Prof\'l Testing Serv. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Prof\'l Publ\'ns, 108 F.3d\n1147 (9th Cir. 1997).\nBenton Franklin Riverfront Trailway & Bridge Comm. v. Skinner, 914 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir.\n1990).\nIns. Co. of Pa. v. Associated Int\'l Ins. Co., 922 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1990)\nMorrell Constr. v. Home Ins. Co., 920 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1990).\nOlguin v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 740 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1984).\nDillon v. Fibreboard Corp., 919 F.2d 1488 (10th Cir. 1990).\nCommc\'n Workers of Am. v. Southeastern Elec. Coop., 882 F.2d 467 (10th Cir. 1989).\nHaagen-Dazs Co. v. Masterbrand Distribs., 918 F.2d 183 (11th Cir. 1990).\nTally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Cmty. Coll. Dist., 889 F.2d 1018 (11th Cir. 1989).\nNat\'l Distrib. Co. v. James B. Beam Distilling Co. 845 F.2d 307 (11th Cir. 1988).\n\nCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOr. Steel Mills, Inc. v. United States, 862 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\nDistrict Courts\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nHollander v. Inst. For Research on Women & Gend. At Columbia Univ., No. 08 Civ. 7286\n(LAK) (KNF), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34942 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2009).\nHuangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. Nature\'s Farm Prods., No. 99 Civ. 9404 (SHS), 2000\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 12335 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2000).\nVillar v. Crowley Mar. Corp., 780 F. Supp. 1467 (S.D. Tex. 1992).\nDiaz v. Antilles Conversion & Exp., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D.P.R. 1999).\nGlen Holly Entm\'t, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 1999).\nPerlman v. Swiss Bank Corp. Comprehensive Disability Prot. Plan, 979 F. Supp. 726\n(N.D. Ill. 1997).\nNatural Res. Def. Council v. Fox, 93 F. Supp. 2d 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).\nChatoff v. West Publ\'g Co., 948 F. Supp. 176 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).\nHaghighi v. Russian-American Broad. Co., 945 F. Supp. 1233 (D. Minn. 1996).\nUpjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 936 F. Supp. 55 (D.P.R. 1996).\nN.J. Tpk. Auth. v. PPG Indus., 16 F. Supp. 2d 460 (D.N.J. 1998).\nTrs. of the Univ. of Pa. v. Mayflower Transit, Civil Action No. 97-1111, 1997 U.S. Dist.\nLEXIS 14577, (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 1997).\nAzalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat, 246 F. Supp. 780 (S.D. Fla. 1965).\nGlinsey v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 356 F. Supp. 984 (N.D. Ohio 1973), rev\'d, 495 F.2d 565\n(6th Cir. 1974).\nPost v. Textron, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 419 (W.D. Mich. 1983).\nHotchner v. Barrymore, 31 F. Supp. 928 (E.D.N.Y. 1940).\nLamkin v. Bowen, 721 F. Supp. 263 (D. Colo. 1989).\nAllen v. Hunter, 65 F. Supp. 365 (D. Kan. 1946).\nNavajo Freight Lines v. Bibb, 159 F. Supp. 385 (S.D. Ill. 1958).\n\n56\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMcRae v. Publ\'ns Int\'l, 985 F. Supp. 1036 (D. Kan. 1997).\nVan Houten v. Ralls, 290 F. Supp. 67 (D. Nev. 1967).\nUnited States v. Love, 141 F.R.D. 315 (D. Colo. 1992).\n\nBankruptcy Courts and Bankruptcy Panels\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWeiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc., 208 B.R. 69 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 1997).\n\nCourt of Federal Claims\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nEx\'r of Estate of Wicker v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 172 (1999).\nExpress Foods, Inc. v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 733 (Cl. Ct. 1981).*\nYoungstown Steel Equip. Sales, Inc. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 517 (1990), rev\'d, 935\nF.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1991).\n\n* The parenthetical reference "Cl. Ct." must be included in pre-1982 cites to the Ct. Cl.\nreporter but is unnecessary in cases cited to the Cl. Ct. reporter.\n\nTax Court\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAllied Equip. Leasing II v. Comm\'r, 97 T.C. 575 (1991).\n\nMilitary Service Courts of Criminal Appeals\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUnited States v. Zamberlan, 45 M.J. 491 (C.A.A.F. 1997).\nUnited States v. Myers, 25 M.J. 573 (A.F.C.M.R. 1987), petition denied, 27 M.J. 20\n(C.M.A. 1988).\nUnited States v. Young, 24 M.J. 626 (A.C.M.R. 1987).\n\nState Case Citations:\nIn states where a citation variant appears against a different background there is a distinct\ncase citation format used within the jurisdiction by state courts and those submitting\nmemoranda or briefs to them.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas\nCalifornia | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware\nDistrict of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii\nIdaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa\nKansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine\nMaryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota\nMississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska\nNevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico\nNew York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio\nOklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island\nSouth Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas\nUtah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington\nWest Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming\n57\n\n\x0cAlabama\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSe. Meats of Pelham, Inc. v. City of Birmingham, 895 So. 2d 909 (Ala. 2004).\nTalton Telecomm. Corp. v. Coleman, 665 So. 2d 914 (Ala. 1995).\nPiersol v. ITT Phillips Drill Div., Inc., 445 So. 2d 559 (Ala. 1989).\nMims v. Am. Fed\'n of Gov\'t Emps., 531 So. 2d 661 (Ala. 1988).\nGov\'t & Civic Emps. Org. Comm. v. Windsor, 262 Ala. 285, 78 So. 2d 646 (1955).*\nGov\'t & Civic Emps. Org. Comm. v. Windsor, 78 So. 2d 646 (Ala. 1955).\nState Dep\'t of Pub. Health v. Boackle-Phipps Foods, 594 So. 2d 1234 (Ala. Civ. App.\n1991).\nTracy v. Tracy, 939 So. 2d 48 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).\nSanders v. State, 947 So. 2d 432 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).\n\n* Publication of Alabama Reports and Alabama Appellate Court Reports (Ala. App.) ceased\nin 1976. In-state references to decisions appearing in those reports should, where possible,\ninclude parallel citations to them. Note that Alabama has two intermediate appellate courts,\none with civil and one with criminal jurisdiction.\n\nAlaska\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlaska Far E. Corp. v. Newby, 630 P.2d 533 (Alaska 1981).\nParks v. State, 731 P.2d 597 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987).\nParks v. State, 731 P.2d 597 (Alaska App. 1987).*\n\n* In-state references to Alaska Court of Appeals decisions generally use this slightly more\neconomical format. For more examples, see \xc2\xa7 7-500.\n\nArizona\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United E. Mining Co., 39 Ariz. 533, 8 P.2d 449 (1932).*\nTom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United E. Mining Co., 8 P.2d 449 (Ariz. 1932).\nSpurlock v. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co., 143 Ariz. 469, 694 P.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1984).*\nSpurlock v. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co., 143 Ariz. 469, 694 P.2d 299 (App. 1984).**\nSpurlock v. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co., 694 P.2d 299 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).\nJohnson Int\'l, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 466, 470-71 \xc2\xb6 26, 967 P.2d 607, 611-12\n(App. 1998).**\nJohnson Int\'l, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 967 P.2d 607, 611-12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Arizona Reports should, where possible,\ninclude parallel citations to those reports.\n** In-state references also generally use this slightly more economical abbreviation of the\nCourt of Appeals. In addition, decisions rendered since January 1, 1998, include paragraph\nnumbers which are generally used, together with rather than instead of page numbers, in\nin-state pinpoint citations. For more examples, see \xc2\xa7 7-500.\n\n58\n\n\x0cArkansas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWhiteside v. Russellville Newspapers, Inc., 2009 Ark. 135, 295 S.W.3d 798.*\nWhiteside v. Russellville Newspapers, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 798 (Ark. 2009).\nMagnolia Sch. Dist. No. 14 v. Ark. State Bd. of Educ., 303 Ark. 666, 799 S.W.2d 791\n(1990).*\nMagnolia Sch. Dist. No. 14 v. Ark. State Bd. of Educ., 799 S.W.2d 791 (Ark. 1990).\nAll City Glass & Mirror v. McGraw Hill Info. Sys. Co., 295 Ark. 520, 750 S.W.2d 395\n(1988).*\nAll City Glass & Mirror v. McGraw Hill Info. Sys. Co., 750 S.W.2d 395 (Ark. 1988).\nBronakowski v. Lindhurst, 2009 Ark. App. 513, 324 S.W.3d 719. *\nBronakowski v. Lindhurst, 324 S.W.3d 719 (Ark. 1990).\nAetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dyer, 6 Ark. App. 211, 639 S.W.2d 536 (1982).*\nAetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dyer, 639 S.W.2d 536 (Ark. Ct. App. 1982).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Arkansas Reports should, where possible,\ninclude parallel citations to those reports. Citations to decisions from 2009 on should\ninstead use the state\'s medium-neutral citation system.\n\nCalifornia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nGreen v. State of California, 42 Cal. 4th 254, 260, 165 P.3d 118, 121, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d\n390, 393 (2007).*\n(Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 260.)**\nGreen v. State of California, 165 P.3d 118, 121 (Cal. 2007).\nCoal. of Concerned Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 4th 733, 101 P.3d 563,\n21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676 (2005).*\nCoal. of Concerned Cmtys., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 101 P.3d 563 (Cal. 2005).\nCal. Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Priest, 12 Cal. 3d 593, 526 P.2d 513, 116 Cal. Rptr. 361\n(1974).*\nCal. Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Priest, 526 P.2d 513 (Cal. 1974).\nSakotas v. Workers\' Comp. Appeals Bd., 80 Cal. App. 4th 262, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 153\n(2000).*\nSakotas v. Workers\' Comp. Appeals Bd., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 153 (Ct. App. 2000).\nSalinas v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 5 Cal. App. 4th 1, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 446\n(1992).*\nSalinas v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 446 (Ct. App. 1992).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in California Reports or California Appellate\nReports should, where possible, include parallel citations to them.\n** In addition, they may but need not use the distinctive format employed by the California\ncourts and set out in the California Style Manual. For examples, see \xc2\xa7 7-500.\n\n59\n\n\x0cColorado\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPeople v. Padilla-Lopez, 2012 CO 49, \xc2\xb6 18, 279 P.3d 651*\nPeople v. Padilla-Lopez, 279 P.3d 651, 656 (Colo. 2012).\nCity of Greeley v. Poudre Valley Rural Elec., 744 P.2d 739 (Colo. 1987), appeal\ndismissed, 485 U.S. 949 (1988).\nB.K. Sweeney Elec. Co. v. Poston, 110 Colo. 139, 132 P.2d 443 (1942).*\nB.K. Sweeney Elec. Co. v. Poston, 132 P.2d 443 (Colo. 1942).\nVaccaro v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 2012 COA 9, \xc2\xb6 18, 275 P.3d 750.*\nVaccaro v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 132 P.3d 750 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).\nPeople v. Petschow, 119 P.3d 495 (Colo. App. 2004).*\nPeople v. Petschow, 119 P.3d 495 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).\nServ. Merch. Co. v. Schwartzberg, 971 P.2d 654 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).\nVessels Oil & Gas Co. v. Coastal Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 764 P.2d 391 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).\n\n* Publication of Colorado Reports ceased in 1980. In-state references to decisions\nappearing in those reports should, where possible, include parallel citations to them. In\naddition, in-state references to decisions of the Court of Appeals can follow the practice of\nthe Colorado courts and use a slightly more economic abbreviation of the court. For more\nexamples, see \xc2\xa7 7-500. Citations to decisions from 2012 on can use the state\'s mediumneutral citation system instead of citations to the regional reporter; they need not include a\nparallel citation.\n\nConnecticut\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTovish v. Gerber Elecs., 212 Conn. 814, 565 A.2d 538 (1989).*\nTovish v. Gerber Elecs., 565 A.2d 538 (Conn. 1989).\nHansen v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 239 Conn. 549, 687 A.2d 1262 (1995).*\nHansen v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 687 A.2d 1262 (Conn. 1995).\nVogel v. Maimonides Acad. of W. Conn., Inc., 58 Conn. App. 624, 754 A.2d 824 (2000).*\nVogel v. Maimonides Acad. of W. Conn., Inc., 754 A.2d 824 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).\nChaleunphone v. Slater Rd. Assocs., 26 Conn. App. 946, 602 A.2d 47 (1992).*\nChaleunphone v. Slater Rd. Assocs., 602 A.2d 47 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).\nBishop\'s Corner Assocs. Ltd. P\'shp v. Serv. Merch. Co., 45 Conn. Supp. 443, 720 A.2d\n531 (1997).*\nBishop\'s Corner Assocs. Ltd. P\'shp v. Serv. Merch. Co., 720 A.2d 531 (Conn. Super. Ct.\n1997).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Connecticut Reports, Connecticut Appellate\nReports, or Connecticut Supplement should, where possible, include citations to them.\nIndeed, state rules specify that citations in the argument portion of a brief should be to the\nofficial reports alone.\n\n60\n\n\x0cDelaware\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nReagan v. Del. Ass\'n of Prof\'l Eng\'rs, 577 A.2d 755 (Del. 1990).\nIn re Polaroid Corp. S\'holders Litig., 560 A.2d 491 (Del. 1989).\nIstituto Bancario Italiano SpA v. Hunter Eng\'g Co., 449 A.2d 210 (Del. 1981).\nBank of Am. Nat\'l Trust & Sav. Assoc. v. GAC Props. Credit, Inc., 389 A.2d 1304 (Del.\nCh. 1978).\n\nDistrict of Columbia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCroom v. United States, 546 A.2d 1006 (D.C. 1988).\nLennon v. United States Theatre Corp., 287 U.S. App. D.C. 202, 920 F.2d 996 (1990).*\nLennon v. United States Theatre Corp., 920 F.2d 996 (D.C. Cir. 1990).\n\n* References to decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in briefs\nsubmitted to D.C. courts should include citations to the United States Court of Appeals\nReports in addition to the Federal Reporter.\n\nFlorida\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSwofford v. Richards Enters., Inc., 515 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1987).\nCity of N. Miami v. Fla. Defenders of the Env\'t, 481 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1985).\nGore v. Space Sci. Servs., 697 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).*\nGore v. Space Sci. Servs., 697 So. 2d 841 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).\nS.O.S. Reprod. Sys. of Tampa, Inc. v. Saxon Bus. Prods., Inc., 320 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d\nDCA 1975).*\nS.O.S. Reprod. Sys. of Tampa, Inc. v. Saxon Bus. Prods., Inc., 320 So. 2d 500 (Fla.\nDist. Ct. App. 1975).\n\n* In-state references to decisions of the District Court of Appeal should indicate the district,\nand in similar fashion references to the Circuit Court should indicate the circuit and\nreferences to the County Court, the county. The format for doing so is set out in the Florida\nrules. For those rules and more examples, see \xc2\xa7 7-500.\n\nGeorgia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nRetention Alts., Ltd. v. Hayward, 285 Ga. 437, 678 S.E.2d 877 (2009).*\nRetention Alts., Ltd. v. Hayward, 678 S.E.2d 877 (Ga. 2009).\nDalcor Mgmt., Inc. v. Sewer Rooter, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).\nS & S Mach. Co. v. Intermar S.S. Corp., 189 Ga. App. 13, 374 S.E.2d 767 (1988).*\nS & S Mach. Co. v. Intermar S.S. Corp., 374 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Georgia Reports or Georgia Appeals\nReports should, where possible, include citations to them.\n\n61\n\n\x0cHawaii\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPac. Concrete Fed. Credit Union v. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980).*\nPac. Concrete Fed. Credit Union v. Kauanoe, 614 P.2d 936 (Haw. 1980).\nKrohnert v. Yacht Sys. Haw., Inc., 4 Haw. App. 190, 664 P.2d 738 (1983).*\nKrohnert v. Yacht Sys. Haw., Inc., 664 P.2d 738 (Haw. Ct. App. 1983).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Hawaii Reports or Hawaii Appellate Reports\nshould, where possible, include citations to them. Hawaii Appellate Reports ended in 1994.\nSince 1994, Hawaii Reports have included decisions of both the Hawaii Supreme Court\nand the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.\n\nIdaho\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nKootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 105 Idaho 622, 671 P.2d\n1085 (1983).*\nKootenai Envtl. Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 671 P.2d 1085 (Idaho\n1983).\nMcCorkle v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 112 P.3d 838 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).\nJones v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 105 Idaho 520, 620 P.2d 1305 (Ct. App.\n1983).*\nJones v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 620 P.2d 1305 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Idaho Reports should, where possible,\ninclude citations to them.\n\nIllinois\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSnyder v. Heidelberger, 2011 IL 111052, 953 N.E.2d 415.*\nSnyder v. Heidelberger, 953 N.E. 415 (Ill. 2011).\nLinden Bros. v. Practical Elec. & Eng\'g Publ\'g Co., 309 Ill. 132, 140 N.E. 874 (1923).*\nLinden Bros. v. Practical Elec. & Eng\'g Publ\'g Co., 140 N.E. 874 (Ill. 1923).\nPeople v. Hansen, 2011 IL App (2d) 081226, 952 N.E.2d 82.*\nPeople v. Hansen, 952 N.E.2d 82 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).\nLewis v. Rutland Twp., 359 Ill. App. 3d 1076, 824 N.E.2d 1213 (2005).*\nLewis v. Rutland Twp., 824 N.E.2d 1213 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).\nJastram v. Lake Villa Sch. Dist. 41, 192 Ill. App. 3d 599, 549 N.E.2d 9 (1989).*\nJastram v. Lake Villa Sch. Dist. 41, 549 N.E.2d 9 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Illinois Reports or Illinois Appellate Court\nReports should, where possible, include citations to them. Citations to decisions from 2011\non should instead use the state\'s medium-neutral citation system. Illinois court rules allow,\nbut do not require, parallel citations to the North Eastern Reporter.\n\n62\n\n\x0cIndiana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSlater v. Akron Exch. State Bank, 221 Ind. 497, 49 N.E.2d 344 (1943).*\nSlater v. Akron Exch. State Bank, 49 N.E.2d 344 (Ind. 1943).\nLovko v. Lovko, 179 Ind. App. 1, 384 N.E.2d 166 (1978).*\nLovko v. Lovko, 384 N.E.2d 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978).\nArth Main St. Drugs, Inc. v. A-1 Beverage Comm\'n, 404 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).\n\n* Publication of Indiana Court of Appeals Reports ceased in 1979; Indiana Reports, in\n1981. In-state references to decisions appearing in those reports should, where possible,\ninclude parallel citations to them.\n\nIowa\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIowa Fed\'n of Labor v. Iowa Dep\'t of Job Serv., 427 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa 1988).\nCity of Sioux City v. Bd. of Trs. of Fire Ret. Sys., 348 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984).\nBates v. Quality Ready-Mix Co., 261 Iowa 696, 154 N.W.2d 852 (1967).*\nBates v. Quality Ready-Mix Co., 154 N.W.2d 852 (Iowa 1967).\n\n* Publication of Iowa Reports ceased in 1968. In-state references to decisions appearing in\nthose reports should, where possible, include parallel citations to them.\n\nKansas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nFarmers Ins. Co. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 279 Kan. 976, 113 P.3d 258 (2005).*\nFarmers Ins. Co. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 113 P.3d 258 (Kan. 2005).\nCent. Fin. Co. v. Stevens, 221 Kan. 1, 558 P.2d 122 (1976).*\nCent. Fin. Co. v. Stevens, 558 P.2d 122 (Kan. 1976).\nDe Graeve v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 753, 687 P.2d 1380 (1984).*\nDe Graeve v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 687 P.2d 1380 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Kansas Reports or Kansas Court of Appeals\nReports should, where possible, include citations to them.\n\n63\n\n\x0cKentucky\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nDep\'t of Revenue v. Isaac W. Bernheim Found.,Inc., 505 S.W.2d 762 (Ky. 1974).\nCement Transp., Inc. v. Hodges, 505 S.W.2d 32 (Ky. App. 1974).*\nCement Transp., Inc. v. Hodges, 505 S.W.2d 32 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974).\nLouisville Title Mortg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 299 Ky. 224, 184 S.W.2d 963 (1944).\nLouisville Title Mortg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 184 S.W.2d 963 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944).\n\n* In-state references should indicate the deciding court using this slightly different format\nset out in Kentucky rules.\n\nLouisiana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nState v. Smith, 98-1417, p. 15 (La. 6/29/01); 793 So. 2d 1199, 1208.*\nState v. Smith, 793 So. 2d 1199, 1208 (La. 2001).\nCharles v. St. Mary Ironworks, Inc., 96-2923 (La. 3/14/97); 689 So. 2d 1380.*\nCharles v. St. Mary Ironworks, Inc., 689 So. 2d 1380 (La. 1997).\nWilson v. Grosjean Contractors, Inc., 97-0012 (La. 3/14/97); 690 So. 2d 25.*\nWilson v. Grosjean Contractors, Inc., 690 So. 2d 25 (La. 1997).\nMellon Fin. Servs. Corp. #7 v. Alexander, 551 So. 2d 632 (La. 1989).\nFirst Metro. Bank v. Plaia, 386 So. 2d 94 (La. 1980), on remand, 389 So. 2d 870 (La. Ct.\nApp. 1980).\nEconomy Carpets Mfrs. v. Better Bus. Bureau, Inc., 341 So. 2d 555 (La. 1977).\nSiemssen v. Manpower Temp. Servs., 95-80 (La.App. 5 Cir, 5/30/95); 656 So. 2d 1115.*\nSiemssen v. Manpower Temp. Servs., 656 So. 2d 1115 (La. Ct. App. 1995).\nRoberts v. La. State Univ. Med. Ctr., 554 So. 2d 230 (La. Ct. App. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 1994 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under Lousiana rules, consists of the docket number and date in the format\nshown here.\n\nMaine\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBeale v. Sec\'y of State, 1997 ME 82, \xc2\xb6 7, 693 A.2d 336.*\nBeale v. Sec\'y of State, 693 A.2d 336, 339 (Me. 1997).\nLarochelle v. Hodsdon, 1997 ME 53, \xc2\xb6 13, 690 A.2d 986.*\nLarochelle v. Hodsdon, 690 A.2d 986, 989 (Me. 1997).\nBazinet v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 513 A.2d 279 (Me. 1986).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 1997 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under Maine rules, consists of the year, the state postal abbreviation, and a\nsequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court.\n\n64\n\n\x0cMaryland\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nThree Garden Vill. Ltd. P\'ship v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 318 Md. 98, 567 A.2d\n85 (1989).*\nThree Garden Vill. Ltd. P\'ship v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 567 A.2d 85 (Md. 1989).\nMclean Contracting Co. v. Md. Transp. Auth., 70 Md. App. 514, 521 A.2d 1251.*\nMclean Contracting Co. v. Md. Transp. Auth., 521 A.2d 1251 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), cert.\ndenied, 527 A.2d 51 (Md. 1987).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Maryland Reports or Maryland Appellate\nReports should, where possible, include citations to them. Note that the Maryland Court of\nAppeals is the state\'s highest court and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, an\nintermediate appellate court.\n\nMassachusetts\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWBZ-TV4 v. Exec. Office of Labor, 414 Mass. 767, 610 N.E.2d 923 (1993).*\nWBZ-TV4 v. Exec. Office of Labor, 610 N.E.2d 923 (Mass. 1993).\nMcKenzie v. Brigham & Women\'s Hosp., 405 Mass. 432, 541 N.E.2d 325 (1989).*\nMcKenzie v. Brigham & Women\'s Hosp., 541 N.E.2d 325 (Mass. 1989).\nNe. Avionics, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 509, 827 N.E.2d 721 (2005).*\nNe. Avionics, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 827 N.E.2d 721 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005).\nApahouser Lock & Sec. Corp. v. Carvelli, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 1117, 522 N.E.2d 1016\n(1988).*\nApahouser Lock & Sec. Corp. v. Carvelli, 522 N.E.2d 1016 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Massachusetts Reports or Massachusetts\nAppeals Court Reports should, where possible, include citations to them.\n\n65\n\n\x0cMichigan\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBooker v Med Pers Pool, 456 Mich 913; 572 NW2d 656 (1997).*\nBooker v. Med. Pers. Pool, 572 N.W.2d 656 (Mich. 1997).\nRenshaw v Coldwater Hous Comm\'n, 381 Mich 590; 165 NW2d 5 (1969).*\nRenshaw v. Coldwater Hous. Comm\'n, 165 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. 1969).\nNat\'l Ctr for Mfg Scis v City of Ann Arbor, 221 Mich App 541; 563 NW2d 65 (1997).*\nNat\'l Ctr. for Mfg. Scis. v. City of Ann Arbor, 563 N.W.2d 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).\nGordon Food Serv, Inc v Grand Rapids Material Handling Co, 183 Mich App 241; 454\nNW2d 137 (1989).*\nGordon Food Serv., Inc. v. Grand Rapids Material Handling Co., 454 N.W.2d 137 (Mich.\nCt. App. 1989).\nMed. Soc\'y of NJ v NJ Dep\'t of Law & Pub Safety, 183 Mich App 241; 454 NW2d 137\n(1989).*\nMed. Soc\'y of N.J. v. N.J. Dep\'t of Law & Pub. Safety, 454 N.W.2d 137 (Mich. Ct. App.\n1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Michigan Reports or Michigan Appeals\nReports should, where possible, include citations to them, in parallel with citations to the\nregional reporter. The format shown above (including the absence of periods called for by\nThe Bluebook and a semi-colon separating the parallel citations) is that set out in the\nMichigan rules. Those rules deviate in numerous other respects from the citation norms of\nThe Bluebook, for both Michigan and out-of-state authority. For those rules and more\nexamples, see \xc2\xa7 7-500.\n\nMinnesota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMinnegasco, Inc. v. Cnty. of Carver, 447 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 1989).\nGreat W. Cas. Co. v. Christenson, 450 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).\n\nMississippi\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBlackledge v. Omega Ins. Co., 98-CA-00380-SCT (\xc2\xb6 7), 740 So. 2d 295 (Miss. 1998) (en\nbanc).*\nBlackledge v. Omega Ins. Co., 740 So. 2d 295, 299 (Miss. 1998) (en banc).\nABC Mfg. Corp. v. Doyle, 97-CT-01376-SCT (\xc2\xb6 14), 749 So. 2d 43 (Miss. 1997) (en\nbanc).*\nABC Mfg. Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So. 2d 43, 46 (Miss. 1997) (en banc).\nHartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Foster, 528 So. 2d 255 (Miss. 1988).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from July 1, 1997, forward should include a mediumneutral citation which, under Mississippi rules, consists of the clerk-assigned case number\nin the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the paragraph numbers assigned by\nthe court.\n\n66\n\n\x0cMissouri\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nLewis v. St. Louis Indep. Packing Co., 3 S.W.2d 244 (Mo. 1928).\nEx rel. Dir. of Revenue, Mo. v. McKenzie, 936 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).\nImperial Util. Corp. v. Cytron, 673 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).\n\nMontana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPrescott v. Innovative Res. Grp., 2010 MT 35, \xc2\xb6 19, 355 Mont. 220, 225 P.3d 1253.*\nPrescott v. Innovative Res. Grp., 225 P.3d 1253, 1256 (Mont. 2010).\nJohnson v. Mont. Dep\'t of Labor & Indus., 240 Mont. 288, 783 P.2d 1355 (1989).*\nJohnson v. Mont. Dep\'t of Labor & Indus., 783 P.2d 1355 (Mont. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Montana Reports should, where possible,\ninclude citations to those reports, in parallel with citations to the regional reporter. In\naddition, in-state references to decisions from 1998 forward should include a mediumneutral citation which, under Montana rules, consists of the year, the state postal\nabbreviation, and a sequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites\nshould be to the paragraph numbers assigned by the court.\n\nNebraska\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNI Indus., Inc v. Husker-Hawkeye Distrib., Inc., 233 Neb. 808, 448 N.W.2d 157 (1989).*\nNI Indus., Inc v. Husker-Hawkeye Distrib., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1989).\nJohnson v. Johnson, 15 Neb. App. 292, 726 N.W.2d 194 (2006).*\nJohnson v. Johnson, 726 N.W.2d 194 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Nebraska Reports or Nebraska Court of\nAppeals Reports should, where possible, include citations to those reports.\n\nNevada\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBrisbin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 105 Nev. 1024, 810 P.2d 318 (1989).*\nBrisbin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 810 P.2d 318 (Nev. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Nevada Reports should, where possible,\ninclude citations to those reports.\n\n67\n\n\x0cNew Hampshire\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPsychiatric Inst. of Am. v. Mediplex, Inc., 130 N.H. 125, 536 A.2d 169 (1987), later\nproceeding, 132 N.H. 177, 564 A.2d 818 (1989).*\nPsychiatric Inst. of Am. v. Mediplex, Inc., 536 A.2d 169 (N.H. 1987), later proceeding,\n564 A.2d 818 (N.H. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in New Hampshire Reports should, where\npossible, include citations to those reports.\n\nNew Jersey\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nDep\'t of Envtl. Prot. v. Lennan, 147 N.J. 579, 688 A.2d 1055 (1997).*\nDep\'t of Envtl. Prot. v. Lennan, 688 A.2d 1055 (N.J. 1997).\nEssex Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. Dep\'t of Insts. & Agencies, 75 N.J. 232, 381 A.2d 349\n(1978).*\nEssex Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. Dep\'t of Insts. & Agencies, 381 A.2d 349 (N.J. 1978).\nDiehl v. Diehl, 389 N.J. Super. 443, 913 A.2d 803 (App. Div. 2006).*\nDiehl v. Diehl, 913 A.2d 803 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006).\nDavis v. City of Plainfield, 389 N.J. Super. 424, 913 A.2d 166 (Ch. Div. 2006).*\nDavis v. City of Plainfield, 913 A.2d 166 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2006).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in New Jersey Reports or New Jersey Superior\nCourt Reports should, where possible, include citations to those reports. With Superior\nCourt decisions, the division of the court should be indicated: App. Div., Ch. Div. or Law\nDiv.\n\nNew Mexico\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCoates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1999-NMSC-013, 127 N.M. 47, 976 P.2d 999.*\nCoates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 P.2d 999 (N.M. 1999).\nGolden Oil Co. v. Chace Oil Co., 2000-NMCA-005, \xc2\xb6 16, 128 N.M. 526, 994 P.2d 772.*\nGolden Oil Co. v. Chace Oil Co., 994 P.2d 772, 776 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000).\nGallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency, 108 N.M. 722, 779 P.2d 99 (1989).*\nGallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency, 779 P.2d 99 (N.M. 1989).\nBuckingham v. Health S. Rehab. Hosp., 124 N.M. 419, 952 P.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1997).*\nBuckingham v. Health S. Rehab. Hosp., 952 P.2d 20 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).\nGallegos v. Yeargin W. Constructors, 104 N.M. 623, 725 P.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1986).*\nGallegos v. Yeargin W. Constructors, 725 P.2d 599 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in New Mexico Reports should, where\npossible, include citations to those reports, in parallel with citations to the regional reporter.\nIn addition in-state references to decisions from 1996 forward should include a mediumneutral citation which, under New Mexico rules, consists of the year, a court identifier, and\na sequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court.\n\n68\n\n\x0cNew York\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAnderson v. Rehab. Programs Found., 90 N.Y.2d 810, 688 N.E.2d 1381, 666 N.Y.S.2d\n99 (1997).*\nAnderson v. Rehab. Programs Found., 688 N.E.2d 1381 (N.Y. 1997).\nBerkowitz v. Chavo Int\'l Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 893, 547 N.E.2d 105, 547 N.Y.S.2d 850 (1989).*\nBerkowitz v. Chavo Int\'l Inc., 547 N.E.2d 105 (N.Y. 1989).\nM.I.F. Sec. Co. v. R.C. Stamm & Co., 60 N.Y.2d 936, 459 N.E.2d 193, 471 N.Y.S.2d 84\n(1983).*\nM.I.F. Sec. Co. v. R.C. Stamm & Co., 459 N.E.2d 193 (N.Y. 1983).\nMedici v. Dalton Sch., Inc., 34 N.Y.2d 735, 313 N.E.2d 789, 357 N.Y.S.2d 496 (1974).*\nMedici v. Dalton Sch., Inc., 313 N.E.2d 789 (N.Y. 1974).\nSchwartz v. Pub. Adm\'r, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 246 N.E.2d 725, 298 N.Y.S.2d 955 (1968).*\nSchwartz v. Pub. Adm\'r, 246 N.E.2d 725 (N.Y. 1968).\nBrown v. N.Y. City Econ. Dev. Corp., 234 A.D.2d 33, 650 N.Y.S.2d 213 (1st Dep\'t\n1996).*\nBrown v. N.Y. City Econ. Dev. Corp., 650 N.Y.S.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).\nHugo v. A & A Maint. Enter., 269 A.D.2d 357, 702 N.Y.S.2d 387 (2d Dep\'t 2000).*\nHugo v. A & A Maint. Enter., 702 N.Y.S.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000).\nLaro Maint. Corp. v. Culkin, 267 A.D.2d 431, 700 N.Y.S.2d 490 (2d Dep\'t 1999).*\nLaro Maint. Corp. v. Culkin, 700 N.Y.S.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999).\nCity of New York v. Park S. Assocs., 146 A.D.2d 537, 538 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1st Dep\'t\n1989).*\nCity of New York v. Park S. Assocs., 538 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989).\nIBM v. Universal Transcon. Corp., 191 A.D.2d 536, 595 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2d Dep\'t 1993).*\nIBM v. Universal Transcon. Corp., 595 N.Y.S.2d 106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in New York Reports, Appellate Division\nReports, or New York Miscellaneous Reports should, where possible, include citations to\nthem. In addition, in-state references to decisions of the Supreme Court Appellate Division\nshould normally indicate the Department.\n\nNorth Carolina\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nChestnut v. Private Inv. Corp., 32 N.C. 363, 373 S.E.2d 542 (1988).*\nChestnut v. Private Inv. Corp., 373 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 1988).\nNolan v. Forsyth Mem\'l Hosp., 124 N.C. App. 670, 478 S.E.2d 676 (1996).*\nNolan v. Forsyth Mem\'l Hosp., 478 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).\nJoyner v. Town of Weaverville, 94 N.C. App. 588, 380 S.E.2d 536, (1989).*\nJoyner v. Town of Weaverville, 380 S.E.2d 536, (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in North Carolina Reports or North Carolina\nCourt of Appeals Reports should, where possible, include citations to them, in parallel with\ncitations to the regional reporter.\n\n69\n\n\x0cNorth Dakota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nLinderkamp v. Hoffman, 1997 ND 64, \xc2\xb6 11, 562 N.W.2d 734.*\nLinderkamp v. Hoffman, 562 N.W.2d 734, 737 (N.D. 1997).\nCont\'l Res., Inc. v. Farrar Oil Co., 1997 ND 31, \xc2\xb6 12, 559 N.W.2d 841.*\nCont\'l Res., Inc. v. Farrar Oil Co., 559 N.W.2d 841, 845 (N.D. 1997).\nState v. Roberson, 1998 ND App 15, \xc2\xb6 12, 586 N.W.2d 687.*\nState v. Roberson, 586 N.W.2d 687, 690 (N.D. Ct. App. 1998).\nNorden Lab., Inc. v. Rotenberger, 358 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 1984).\nDutchuk v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm\'rs, 429 N.W.2d 21 (N.D. Ct. App. 1988).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 1997 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under North Dakota rules, consists of the year, a court identifier, and a\nsequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court.\n\nOhio\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOffice of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shrode, 95 Ohio St. 3d 137, 2002-Ohio-1759, 766\nN.E.2d 597, \xc2\xb6 8.*\nOffice of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shrode, 766 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 2002).\nDavis v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll. (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 1488, 678 N.E.2d 1227.*\nDavis v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll., 678 N.E.2d 1227 (Ohio 1997).\nMetro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Kott (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 114, 116, 403 N.E.2d 985.*\nMetro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Kott, 403 N.E.2d 985, 986 (Ohio 1980).\nJohnston v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc. (1990), 68 Ohio App. 3d 655, 589 N.E.2d\n432, motion overruled, 56 Ohio St. 3d 713, 565 N.E.2d 836.*\nJohnston v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 589 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio Ct. App.), motion\noverruled, 565 N.E.2d 836 (Ohio 1990).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Ohio State Reports, Ohio Appellate Reports,\nor Ohio Miscellaneous Reports should, where possible, include citations to them. Ohio\ncourt practice is to place the year immediately following the parties\' names rather than at\nthe end of the citation. In addition, in-state references to decisions from 2002 forward\nshould include a medium-neutral citation which, under Ohio rules, consists of the year,\n"Ohio", and a sequential decision number in the format shown in the first example. Pinpoint\ncites can be to the paragraph numbers assigned by the court reporter or, with pre-2002\ndecisions, to the official report alone.\n\n70\n\n\x0cOklahoma\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOliver v. Farmers Ins. of Cos., 1997 OK 71, \xc2\xb6 6, 941 P.2d 985.*\nOliver v. Farmers Ins. of Cos., 941 P.2d 985, 987 (Okla. 1997).\nABC Coating Co. v. J. Harris & Sons Ltd., 747 P.2d 271 (Okla. 1987).\nPeacock v. State, 2002 OK CR 21, \xc2\xb6 5, 46 P.3d 713.*\nPeacock v. State, 46 P.3d 713, 714 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).\nState ex rel. Gibson v. 1997 Dodge, 2001 OK CIV APP 130, \xc2\xb6 15, 35 P.3d 1009.*\nState ex rel. Gibson v. 1997 Dodge, 35 P.3d 1009, 1013 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 1997 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under Oklahoma rules, consists of the year, a court identifier, and a\nsequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court. Note that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\nAppeals rather than the Oklahoma Supreme Court is the state\'s court of last resort in\ncriminal matters.\n\nOregon\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNecanicum Inv. Co. v. Emp\xe2\x80\x99t Dep\xe2\x80\x99t, 345 Or 518, 200 P3d 129 (2008).*\nNecanicum Inv. Co. v. Emp\xe2\x80\x99t Dep\xe2\x80\x99t, 345 P.3d 200 (Or. 2009).\nRocky B. Fisheries, Inc. v. N. Bend Fabrication & Mach., Inc., 297 Or 82, 679 P2d 1367\n(1984).*\nRocky B. Fisheries, Inc. v. N. Bend Fabrication & Mach., Inc., 679 P.2d 1367 (Or. 1984).\nSchilling v. SAIF Corp., 109 Or App 494, 820 P2d 471 (1991).*\nSchilling v. SAIF Corp., 820 P.2d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Oregon Reports or Oregon Reports, Court of\nAppeals, should, where possible, include citations to them, abbreviated as illustrated above\n(omitting the periods called for by The Bluebook).\n\n71\n\n\x0cPennsylvania\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBlakeney v. Green\'s Rest., 550 Pa. 689, 704 A.2d 1380 (1997).*\nBlakeney v. Green\'s Rest., 704 A.2d 1380 (Pa. 1997).\nBeckwith Mach. Co. v. Commonwealth, 485 Pa. 337, 402 A.2d 661 (1979).*\nBeckwith Mach. Co. v. Commonwealth, 402 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1979).\nBullocks v. Aliquippa & S. R.R. Co., 364 Pa. Super. 642, 525 A.2d 812, appeal denied,\n516 Pa. 621, 532 A.2d 19 (1987).*\nBullocks v. Aliquippa & S. R.R. Co., 525 A.2d 812 (Pa. Super. Ct.), appeal denied, 532\nA.2d 19 (Pa. 1987).\nWells v. Cendant Mobility Fin. Corp., 2006 PA Super 363, \xc2\xb6 9, 913 A.2d 929, 933.*\nWells v. Cendant Mobility Fin. Corp., 913 A.2d 929, 933 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).\nWeaver v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).\nKeystone Outdoor Adver. v. Commonwealth, 687 A.2d 47 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Pennsylvania State Reports, Pennsylvania\nSuperior Court Reports, or Pennsylvania Commonwealth Reports should, where possible,\ninclude citations to them, in parallel with citations to the regional reporter. The Pennsylvania\nSuperior Court Reports ceased publication in 1998; the Pennsylvania Commonwealth\nReports, in 1994. In addition, in-state references to decisions of the Superior Court should\ninclude a medium-neutral citation which consists of the year, a court identifier, and a\nsequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites can be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by that court.\n\nRhode Island\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBrown & Sharp Mfg. Co. v. King, 404 A.2d 857 (R.I. 1979).\n\nSouth Carolina\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMyrtle Beach Seafood Mkt., Inc. v. Rikard, 266 S.C. 52, 221 S.E.2d 399 (S.C. 1976).*\nMyrtle Beach Seafood Mkt., Inc. v. Rikard, 221 S.E.2d 399 (S.C. 1976).\nCarolina Chems., Inc. v. S.C. Dep\'t of Health & Envtl. Control, 290 S.C. 498, 351 S.E.2d\n575 (Ct. App. 1986).*\nCarolina Chems., Inc. v. S.C. Dep\'t of Health & Envtl. Control, 351 S.E.2d 575 (S.C. Ct.\nApp. 1986).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in South Carolina Reports should, where\npossible, include citations to those reports, in parallel with citations to the regional reporter.\n\n72\n\n\x0cSouth Dakota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nJansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 1997 S.D. 44, \xc2\xb6 10, 562 N.W.2d 122, 125.*\nJansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 562 N.W.2d 122, 125 (S.D. 1997).\nBohlmann v. Lindquist, 1997 S.D. 42, \xc2\xb6 13, 562 N.W.2d 578, 581.*\nBohlmann v. Lindquist, 562 N.W.2d 578, 581 (S.D. 1997).\nDriscoll v. Great Plains Mktg. Co., 322 N.W.2d 478 (S.D. 1982).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 1996 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under current South Dakota rules, consists of the year, the state\nabbreviation (S.D.), and a sequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint\ncites should include the paragraph numbers assigned by the court.\n\nTennessee\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nReagan v. Tenn. Mun. League, 751 S.W.2d 842 (Tenn. 1988).\nFranklin Distrib. Co. v. Crush Int\'l (U.S.A.), Inc., 726 S.W.2d 926 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).\n\nTexas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMariner Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Bossley, 79 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2002).\nCastaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).\nBirnbaum v. Alliance of Am. Insurers, 994 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. App.\xe2\x80\x94Austin 1999, pet.\ndenied).*\nBirnbaum v. Alliance of Am. Insurers, 994 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. App. 1999).\nScoggins v. Best Indus. Unif. Supply Co., 899 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. App.\xe2\x80\x94Houston [14th\nDist.] 1995, no writ).*\nScoggins v. Best Indus. Unif. Supply Co., 899 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. App. 1995).\nWalls Reg\'l Hosp. v. Altaras, 903 S.W.2d 36 (Tex. App.\xe2\x80\x94Waco 1994, orig. proceeding).*\nWalls Reg\'l Hosp. v. Altaras, 903 S.W.2d 36 (Tex. App. 1994).\n\n* In-state references to decisions of the Texas Courts of Appeals should include a\ndesignation of the court plus an indication of any subsequent proceeding in the format\nshown.\n\n73\n\n\x0cUtah\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUtah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Crook, 1999 UT 47, \xc2\xb6 6, 980 P.2d 685.*\nUtah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Crook, 980 P.2d 685, 686 (Utah 1999).\nFitz v. Synthes, 1999 UT 103, \xc2\xb6 11, 990 P.2d 391.*\nFitz v. Synthes, 990 P.2d 391, 393(Utah 1999).\nArrow Indus., Inc. v. Zions First Nat\'l Bank, 767 P.2d 935 (Utah 1988).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 1999 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under Utah rules, consists of the year, the state postal abbreviation, and a\nsequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court.\n\nVermont\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSerecky v. Nat\'l Grange Mut. Ins., 2004 VT 63, \xc2\xb6 15, 177 Vt. 58, 857 A.2d 775.*\nSerecky v. Nat\'l Grange Mut. Ins., 857 A.2d 775, 781 (Vt. 2005).\nIns. Co. of N. Am. v. Miller\'s Mut. Ins. Ass\'n, 139 Vt. 255, 427 A.2d 354 (1981).*\nIns. Co. of N. Am. v. Miller\'s Mut. Ins. Ass\'n, 427 A.2d 354 (Vt. 1981).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Vermont Reports should, where possible,\ninclude citations to those reports, in parallel with citations to the regional reporter. In\naddition in-state references to decisions from 2003 forward should include a mediumneutral citation which, under Vermont rules, consists of the year, the state postal\nabbreviation, and a sequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites\nshould include the paragraph numbers assigned by the court. Vermont rules also call for\nthe use of medium-neutral cites for cases from other jurisdictions that have adopted them.\n\nVirginia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nGovernment Emps. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 266 Va. 155, 580 S.E.2d 823 (2003).*\nGovernment Emps. Ins. Co. v. Moore, N.A., 580 S.E.2d 823 (Va. 2003).\nKhanna v. Dominion Bank of N. Va., N.A., 237 Va. 242, 377 S.E.2d 378 (1989).*\nKhanna v. Dominion Bank of N. Va., N.A., 377 S.E.2d 378 (Va. 1989).\nFirst Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Gryder, 909 Va. App. 60, 383 S.E.2d 755 (1989).*\nFirst Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Gryder, 383 S.E.2d 755 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Virginia Reports or Virginia Court of Appeals\nReports should, where possible, include citations to them, in parallel with citations to the\nregional reporter.\n\n74\n\n\x0cWashington\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nState v. Heddrick, 166 Wn.2d 898, \xc2\xb6 20, 215 P.3d 201 (2009).*\nState v. Heddrick, 215 P.3d 201, 206 (2009).\nShorewood W. Condo. Ass\'n v. Sadri, 140 Wn.2d 47, 992 P.2d 1008 (2000).*\nShorewood W. Condo. Ass\'n v. Sadri, 992 P.2d 1008 (Wash. 2000).\nFirst United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam\'r for Seattle Landmarks Pres.\nBd., 129 Wn.2d 238, 916 P.2d 374 (1996).*\nFirst United Methodist Church of Seattle v. Hearing Exam\'r for Seattle Landmarks Pres.\nBd., 916 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1996).\nPeople\'s Org. for Wash. Energy Res. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm\'n, 104 Wn.2d 798, 711\nP.2d 319 (1985).*\nPeople\'s Org. for Wash. Energy Res. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm\'n, 711 P.2d 319\n(Wash. 1985).\nCameron v. Murray , 151 Wn. App. 646, \xc2\xb6 14, 214 P.3d 150 (2009).*\nCameron v. Murray, 214 P.3d 150, 155 (2009).\nGraves v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc., 55 Wn. App. 908, 781 P.2d 895 (1989).*\nGraves v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc., 781 P.2d 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Washington Reports or Washington\nAppellate Reports should, where possible, include citations to them, abbreviated as\nillustrated above ("Wn." rather than The Bluebook\'s "Wash."), in parallel with citations to the\nregional reporter. Pinpoint cites need only use the page numbers in the official report or in\nthe case of decisions issued since 2004 the paragraph numbers appearing in the official\nreport.\n\nWest Virginia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSyl. pt. 3, Cline v. Paramount Pac., Inc., 156 W. Va. 641, 196 S.E.2d 87 (1973).*\nCline v. Paramount Pac., Inc., 196 S.E.2d 87 (W. Va. 1973).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in West Virginia Reports should, where\npossible, include citations to those reports, in parallel with citations to the regional reporter.\nCase holdings should, were possible, be cited to syllabus points in the format illustrated.\n\n75\n\n\x0cWisconsin\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAicher v. Wis. Patients Comp., 2000 WI 98, \xc2\xb6 53, 237 Wis. 2d 99, 613 N.W.2d 849.*\nAicher v. Wis. Patients Comp., 613 N.W.2d 849, 865 (Wis. 2000).\nStrasser v. Transtech Mobile Fleet Serv., Inc., 2000 WI 87, \xc2\xb6 60, 236 Wis. 2d 435, 613\nN.W.2d 142.*\nStrasser v. Transtech Mobile Fleet Serv., Inc., 613 N.W.2d 142, 155-56 (Wis. 2000).\nSudgen v. Bock, 2002 WI App 49, 251 Wis. 2d 344, 641 N.W.2d 693.*\nSudgen v. Bock, 641 N.W.2d 693 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).\nBlossom Farm Prods. Co. v. Kasson Cheese Co., 134 Wis. 2d 458, 401 N.W.2d 10\n(1987).*\nBlossom Farm Prods. Co. v. Kasson Cheese Co., 401 N.W.2d 10 (Wis. 1987).\nLipke v. Waushara Elec. Coop., 151 Wis. 2d 784, 447 N.W.2d 394 (Ct. App. 1989).*\nLipke v. Waushara Elec. Coop., 447 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions appearing in Wisconsin Reports should, where possible,\ninclude citations to those reports, in parallel with the regional reporter. In addition, in-state\nreferences to decisions from 2000 forward should include a medium-neutral citation which,\nunder Wisconsin rules, consists of the year, a court identifier, and a sequential decision\nnumber in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the paragraph numbers\nassigned by the court.\n\nWyoming\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nState v. Nelson, 2002 WY 99, \xc2\xb6 6, 49 P.3d 185 (Wyo. 2002).*\nState v. Nelson, 49 P.3d 185, 188 (Wyo. 2002).\nWagner v. Wyo. Prod. Credit Ass\'n, 773 P.2d 927 (Wyo. 1989).\n\n* In-state references to decisions from 2001 forward should include a medium-neutral\ncitation which, under Wyoming rules, consists of the year, the state postal abbreviation, and\na sequential decision number in the format shown here. Pinpoint cites should be to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court. From January 1, 2004, forward the inclusion of\na parallel cite is optional.\n\n76\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-220. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\nIllustrations\n\nFlamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, [Insurance] Auto. L. Rep.\n(CCH) \xc2\xb6 18,307 (Neb. Nov. 8, 1991).\nCollins v. United States, 3 Fed. Est. & Gift Tax Rep. (CCH)\n\xc2\xb6 60,060 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 1991).\nUnited States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 U.S. App.\nLEXIS 1121, at *4 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2010).\nUnited States v. Mena, No. 08-5176-cr, 2010 WL 177220, at\n*1 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2010).\nEverette v. Astrue, No. C 07-3013 MEJ, slip op. at 6 (N.D.\nCal. Feb. 9, 2009).\n\xc2\xa7 3-230. Medium-Neutral Case Citations\nIllustration\n\nLinderkamp v. Hoffman, 1997 ND 64, \xc2\xb6 11, 562 N.W.2d\n734.\nAdditional Examples\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSixth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals\nArkansas\nColorado\nIllinois\nLouisiana\nMaine\nMississippi\nMontana\nNew Mexico\nNorth Dakota\nOhio\nOklahoma\n77\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPennsylvania Superior Court\nSouth Dakota\nUtah\nVermont\nWisconsin\nWyoming\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-240. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items\nIllustrations\n\nCity of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 31, 50 (2000)\n(Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).\nEdmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999), aff\'d,\n531 U.S. 31 (2000).\nDavis v. Barnhart, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22201 (11th Cir.\nOct. 12, 2005) (unpublished).\n\xc2\xa7 3-300. Constitutions and Statutes\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-310. Constitutions\nIllustration\n\nU.S. Const. amend. XIV, \xc2\xa7 1.\nFor short form examples see \xc2\xa7 6-530.\nAdditional Examples\nU.S. Const. art. III, \xc2\xa7 2, cl. 2.\nU.S. Const. amend. XIII, \xc2\xa7 2.\nN.Y. Const. art. I, \xc2\xa7 9, cl. 2.\n\n78\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-320. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\nIllustrations\n\n42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C) .\nIowa Code \xc2\xa7 602.1614.\nFor short form examples see \xc2\xa7 6-530.\nAdditional Examples\nFederal Statute Citations | State Statute Citations\nFederal Statute Citations:\n42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C)(ii).\n42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C)(xi) (2013) (added in 2010).\n42 U.S.C.A. \xc2\xa7 13925(a)(3) (Westlaw as amended, effective Oct. 1, 2013).\n42 U.S.C.S. \xc2\xa7 13925(a)(3) (LexisNexis current through Pub. L. No. 113-31).\n\nState Statute Citations\nIn states where a citation variant appears against a different background there is a distinct\nstatute citation format used within the jurisdiction by state courts and those submitting\nmemoranda or briefs to them.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas\nCalifornia | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware\nDistrict of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii\nIdaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa\nKansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine\nMaryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota\nMississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska\nNevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico\nNew York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio\nOklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island\nSouth Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas\nUtah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington\nWest Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming\n\n79\n\n\x0cAlabama\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAla. Code \xc2\xa7 7-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nAla. Code \xc2\xa7 7-1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nAla. Code 1975, \xc2\xa7 7-1-101.**\n\xc2\xa7 7-1-101, Ala. Code 1975.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print\neditions, the ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is\n"official" being produced under contract with the state (West in this case). The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case.\n** Within Alabama these altered citation formats are used in decisions of the state\xe2\x80\x99s own\ncourts and submissions to them.\n\nAlaska\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlaska Stat. \xc2\xa7 45.01.101 ({date if needed}).*\nAS 45.01.101.**\n\n* The ALWD Citation Manual identifies the publisher even when its version is "official" being\nproduced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case); The Bluebook does not.\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case.\n** Within Alaska this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to. See Alaska\nStat. \xc2\xa7 01.05.011 (2009).\n\nArizona\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAriz. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 47-1101 ({date if needed}).\nAriz. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 47-1101 ({date if needed}).*\nAriz. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 47-1101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nA.R.S. \xc2\xa7 47-1101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the third example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print\neditions, the ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is\n"official" being produced under contract with the state (West in this case - the second\nexample). Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name\nincludes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the\npublisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Arizona this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes are referred to. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 1-101.\n\n80\n\n\x0cArkansas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nArk. Code \xc2\xa7 4-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nArk. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 4-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nArk. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 4-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nA.C.A. \xc2\xa7 4-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the third example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions, the\nALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case - the second\nexample). Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name\nincludes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the\npublisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Arkansas this more economical statutory citation format is sometimes used in\ndecisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where\nthere is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\nSee Ark. Code \xc2\xa7 1-2-113(c).\n\nCalifornia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCal. Com. Code \xc2\xa7 1101 ({date if needed}).\nCal. Com. Code \xc2\xa7 1101 (Deering {date if needed}).*\nCal. Com. Code \xc2\xa7 1101 (West {date if needed}).*\nCommercial Code \xc2\xa7 1101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - Deering (now owned by LexisNexis) in the second example, West in the third. The\nAALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Commercial" citations to California\'s other\nsubject matter codes should substitute their abbreviations - e.g., "Civ." for "Civil" or "Prob."\nfor "Probate."\n** Within California this statutory citation format, with no explicit indication of the jurisdiction,\nbut spelling out the name of the cited code in full, is used in decisions of the state\'s own\ncourts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little ambiguity about\nwhich jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n81\n\n\x0cColorado\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nColo. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 4-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nColo. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 4-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\xc2\xa7 1-101, 4 C.R.S.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the third example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions, the\nALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Colorado this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes are referred to.\n\nConnecticut\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nConn. Gen. Stat. \xc2\xa7 42a-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nConn. Gen. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 42a-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nGeneral Statutes \xc2\xa7 42a-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Connecticut this statutory citation format, with no explicit indication of the\njurisdiction, but spelling out the name of the code in full, is used in decisions of the state\'s\nown courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little ambiguity\nabout which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n82\n\n\x0cDelaware\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nDel. Code tit. 6, \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nDel. Code Ann. tit. 6, \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).*\n6 Del. C. \xc2\xa7 1-101.**\n\n* The ALWD Citation Manual identifies the publisher even when its version is "official" being\nproduced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case); The Bluebook does not.\nBoth call for adding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word\n"annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any\ncase nor would it indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Delaware this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to. See Del.\nCode Ann. tit. 1, 101(b).\n\nDistrict of Columbia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nD.C. Code \xc2\xa7 28:1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nD.C. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 28:1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print\neditions, the ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is\n"official" being produced under contract with the state (West in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n\nFlorida\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nFla. Stat. \xc2\xa7 671.1-101 ({date if needed}).\nFla. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 671.1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nFla. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 671.1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\xc2\xa7 671.1-101, Fla. Stat. ({date}).**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Florida this altered citation order is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and\nsubmissions to them.\n\n83\n\n\x0cGeorgia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nGa. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 11-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nGa. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 11-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nO.C.G.A. \xc2\xa7 11-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Georgia this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to. See Ga.\nCode Ann. \xc2\xa7 1-1-8(e).\n\nHawaii\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nHaw. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 490:1-101 ({date if needed}).\nHaw. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 490:1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nHRS \xc2\xa7 490:1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version\nused was annotated.\n** Within Hawaii this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, sometimes after a first statutory reference\nusing a less abbreviated form.\n\n84\n\n\x0cIdaho\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIdaho Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 28-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nI.C. \xc2\xa7 28-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions, the ALWD Citation Manual\nidentifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official" being produced under\ncontract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for adding the designation\n"Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal\nCitation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the\nversion used was annotated.\n** Within Idaho this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\nIllinois\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n810 Ill. Comp. Stat. \xc2\xa7 5/1-101 ({date if needed}).\n810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 5/1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\n810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 5/1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n810 ILCS 5/1-101 ({date}).**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Illinois this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes are referred to.\n\n85\n\n\x0cIndiana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nInd. Code \xc2\xa7 26-1-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nInd. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 26-1-1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nInd. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 26-1-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nI.C. \xc2\xa7 26-1-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Indiana this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, after an initial full citation.\n\nIowa\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIowa Code \xc2\xa7 554.1101 ({date if needed}).\nIowa Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 554.1101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n\nKansas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nKan. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 84-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nKan. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 84-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nK.S.A. \xc2\xa7 84-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Kansas this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n86\n\n\x0cKentucky\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 355.1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 355.1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nKRS \xc2\xa7 355.1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the first example, West in the second. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Kentucky this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\nLouisiana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nLa. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 10:1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nLa. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. \xc2\xa7 10:1-101 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not indicate whether the version used was annotated.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Code of Civil Procedure" citations to\nLouisiana\'s other subject matter codes should substitute their abbreviations - e.g., "Civ.\nCode" for "Civil Code" or "Code Crim. Proc." for "Code of Criminal Procedure."\n\nMaine\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMe. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 11, \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).*\n11 M.R.S. \xc2\xa71-101 ({date if needed}).**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Maine this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes are referred to.\n\n87\n\n\x0cMaryland\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMd. Code, Com. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).\nMd. Code Ann., Com. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nMd. Code Ann., Com. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nMd. Code ({date if needed}), Commercial Law Art., \xc2\xa7 1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Commercial Law" citations to Maryland\'s\nother subject matter divisions should substitute their abbreviations - e.g., "Crim. Law" for\n"Criminal Law" or "Ins." for "Insurance."\n** Within Maryland this altered citation format, generally followed by a two-letter short form,\nis used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nMassachusetts\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).\nMass. Ann. Laws ch. 106, \xc2\xa7 1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nMass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 106, \xc2\xa7 1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nG. L. c. 106, \xc2\xa7 1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Massachusetts this more economical statutory citation format, with no explicit\nindication of jurisdiction, is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to\nthem, under circumstances where there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes\nand which version are referred to.\n\n88\n\n\x0cMichigan\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMich. Comp. Laws \xc2\xa7 440.1101 ({date if needed}).\nMich. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 19.1101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nMich. Comp. Laws Ann. \xc2\xa7 440.1101 (West {date if needed}).*\nMCL 440.1101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Michigan this more economical statutory citation format set out in an\nadministrative order is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\nFor the full order see \xc2\xa7 7-500.\n\nMinnesota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMinn. Stat. \xc2\xa7 336.1-101 ({date if needed}).\nMinn. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 336.1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n\nMississippi\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMiss. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 75-4-101 ({date if needed}).*\nMiss. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 75-4-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions,\nthe ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated. The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n\n89\n\n\x0cMissouri\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMo. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 400.1-101 ({date if needed}).\nMo. Ann. Stat. \xc2\xa7 400.1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\xc2\xa7 400.1-101, RSMo {date if needed}.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Missouri this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes are referred to.\n\nMontana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMont. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 30-2A-101 ({date if needed}).*\n\xc2\xa7 30-2A-101, MCA.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Montana this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\nNebraska\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNeb. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 2-101 ({date if needed}).\nNeb. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 2-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version\nused was annotated.\n\n90\n\n\x0cNevada\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNev. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 104.1101 ({date if needed}).\nNev. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 104.1101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nNev. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 104.1101 (West {date if needed}).*\nNRS 104.1101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Nevada this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to. See Nev.\nRev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 220.170(4).\n\nNew Hampshire\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 382-A: 1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nN.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 382-A: 1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nRSA 382-A: 1-101 ({date if needed}).**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print\neditions, the ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is\n"official" being produced under contract with the state (West in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within New Hampshire this more economical statutory citation format, with no explicit\nindication of jurisdiction, is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to\nthem, under circumstances where there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes\nare referred to.\n\n91\n\n\x0cNew Jersey\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.J. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 12A:1-101 ({date if needed}).\nN.J. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 12A:1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nN.J.S.A. 12A:1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within New Jersey this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nNew Mexico\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.M. Stat. \xc2\xa7 55-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nN.M. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 55-1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nN.M. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 55-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nNMSA 1978, \xc2\xa7 55-1-101 ({date if needed}).**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within New Mexico this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\n92\n\n\x0cNew York\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.Y. U.C.C. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101 (Consol. {date if needed}).*\nN.Y. U.C.C. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101 (Gould {date if needed}).*\nN.Y. U.C.C. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101 (McKinney {date if needed}).*\nU.C.C. Law \xc2\xa7 1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - the LexisNexis Consolidated Law Service in the first example, its Gould brand in the\nsecond, West\'s McKinney brand in the third. The AALL Universal Citation Guide would not\ninclude the publisher or brand in any case.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Uniform Commercial Code" citations to New\nYork\'s other subject matter divisions should substitute their abbreviations - e.g., "Dom.\nRel." for "Domestic Relations" or "Ins." for "Insurance."\n** Within New York this statutory citation format, with no explicit indication of jurisdiction, is\nused in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances\nwhere there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are\nreferred to.\n\nNorth Carolina\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \xc2\xa7 25-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 25-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nN.C.G.S. \xc2\xa7 25-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions,\nthe ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within North Carolina this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions\nof the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\n93\n\n\x0cNorth Dakota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.D. Cent. Code \xc2\xa7 41-01-01 ({date if needed}).\nN.D.C.C. \xc2\xa7 41-01-01.*\n\n* Within North Dakota this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nOhio\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOhio Rev. Code \xc2\xa7 1301.01 ({date if needed}).*\nOhio Rev. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 1301.01 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nOhio Rev. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 1301.01 (West {date if needed}).*\nR.C. 1301.01.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Ohio this more economical statutory citation format, with no explicit indication of\njurisdiction, is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under\ncircumstances where there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which\nversion are referred to.\n\nOklahoma\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOkla. Stat. tit. 12A, \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).\nOkla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, \xc2\xa7 1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n12A O.S. \xc2\xa7 1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Oklahoma this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n94\n\n\x0cOregon\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOr. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 71.1010 ({date if needed}).\nOr. Rev. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 71.1010 (West {date if needed}).*\nORS 71.1010.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Oregon this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\nPennsylvania\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n13 Pa. Cons. Stat. \xc2\xa7 1101 ({date if needed}).\n13 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 1101 (West {date if needed}).*\n13 Pa.C.S. \xc2\xa7 1101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n** Within Pennsylvania this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions\nof the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nRhode Island\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nR.I. Gen. Laws \xc2\xa7 6-1-1 ({date if needed}).\nG.L. 1956 \xc2\xa7 6-1-1.*\n\n* Within Rhode Island this more economical statutory citation format, with no explicit\nindication of jurisdiction, is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to\nthem, under circumstances where there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes\nand which version are referred to.\n\n95\n\n\x0cSouth Carolina\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nS.C. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 36-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n\nSouth Dakota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nS.D. Codified Laws \xc2\xa7 57A-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nSDCL 57A-1-101.*\n\n* Within South Dakota this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nTennessee\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTenn. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 47-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nTenn. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 47-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nT.C.A. \xc2\xa7 47-1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions,\nthe ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Tennessee this more economical statutory citation format is often used in\ndecisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where\nthere is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n96\n\n\x0cTexas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code \xc2\xa7 1.101 ({date if needed}).\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 1.101 (Vernon {date if needed}).*\nTEX. BUS. & COM. CODE \xc2\xa7 1.101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West\'s Vernon brand in the third. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version\nused was annotated.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Business and Commerce" citations to\nTexas\'s other subject matter divisions should substitute their abbreviations - e.g., "Educ."\nfor "Education" or "Ins." for "Insurance."\n** Within Texas this slightly altered citation format is used in decisions of the state\'s own\ncourts and submissions to them.\n\nUtah\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUtah Code \xc2\xa7 70A 1-101 ({date if needed}).\nUtah Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 70A 1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nUtah Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 70A 1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the third example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions, the\nALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n\nVermont\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9A, \xc2\xa7 1-101 ({date if needed}).*\n9A V.S.A. \xc2\xa7 1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Vermont this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n97\n\n\x0cVirginia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nVa. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 8.1-101 ({date if needed}).*\nVa. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 8.1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nCode \xc2\xa7 8.1-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. In jurisdictions where there are multiple print editions,\nthe ALWD Citation Manual identifies all publishers even the one whose version is "official"\nbeing produced under contract with the state (LexisNexis in this case). Both also call for\nadding the designation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated."\nThe AALL Universal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it\nindicate whether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Virginia this more economical statutory citation format, with no explicit indication\nof jurisdiction, is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them,\nunder circumstances where there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and\nwhich version are referred to.\n\nWashington\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWash. Rev. Code \xc2\xa7 62A 2-101 ({date if needed}).\nWash. Rev. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 62A 2-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nWash. Rev. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 62A.2-101 (West {date if needed}).*\nRCW 62A 2-101.**\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n** Within Washington this more economical statutory citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s statutes and which version are referred to.\n\n98\n\n\x0cWest Virginia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nW. Va. Code \xc2\xa7 46-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nW. Va. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 46-1-101 (LexisNexis {date if needed}).*\nW. Va. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 46-1-101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - LexisNexis in the second example, West in the third. Both also call for adding the\ndesignation "Ann." when the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL\nUniversal Citation Guide would not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate\nwhether the version used was annotated.\n\nWisconsin\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWis. Stat. \xc2\xa7 402.101 ({date if needed}).\nWis. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 402.101 (West {date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for identification of the publisher or\nbrand of any commercial compilation used, not prepared under direct supervision of the\nstate - West in the second example. Both also call for adding the designation "Ann." when\nthe compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation Guide\nwould not include the publisher in any case nor would it indicate whether the version used\nwas annotated.\n\nWyoming\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWyo. Stat. \xc2\xa7 34.1-1-101 ({date if needed}).\nWyo. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 34.1-1-101 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Both The Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual call for adding the designation "Ann."\nwhen the compilation\'s name includes the word "annotated." The AALL Universal Citation\nGuide would not indicate whether the version used was annotated.\n\n99\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-340. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xc2\xa7 3-341. Session Laws\nIllustrations\n\nHouse Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-2,\n121 Stat. 4.\nHealth Risk Limits for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and\nPerfluorooctane Sulfonate, 2007 Minn. Laws ch. 37,\nhttps://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=37&doctype=Chapter\n&year=2007&type=0.\n\xc2\xa7 3-342. Bills\nIllustration\n\nH.R. 2971, 108th Cong. \xc2\xa7 101 (2003).\n\xc2\xa7 3-343. Named Statutes, Original Section Numbers\nIllustration\n\nSocial Security Act \xc2\xa7 223(e), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 423(e).\n\xc2\xa7 3-344. Internal Revenue Code\nIllustration\n\nI.R.C. \xc2\xa7 21.\n\xc2\xa7 3-345. Uniform Acts and Model Codes\nIllustrations\n\nU.C.C. \xc2\xa7 2-202 (amended 2003).\nUnif. Probate Code \xc2\xa7 2-107 (amended 1990), 8(I) U.L.A. 87\n(1998).\n100\n\n\x0cModel Bus. Corp. Act \xc2\xa7 10.01 (2002).\n\xc2\xa7 3-350. Local Ordinance Citations\nIllustration\n\nCincinnati, Ohio, Municipal Code \xc2\xa7 302-3.\n\xc2\xa7 3-360. Treaty Citations\nIllustration\n\nNorth American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., art.\n705(3), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993).\n\xc2\xa7 3-400. Regulations, Other Agency and Executive Material\n\xc2\xa7 3-410. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\nIllustrations\n\n49 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 236.403.\nCode Me. R. 12 170 7 \xc2\xa7 5.\nFor short form examples see \xc2\xa7 6-540.\n\n101\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\x0cAdditional Examples - State Regulation Citations\nIn states where a citation variant appears against a different background there is a distinct\nregulation citation format used within the jurisdiction by state courts and those submitting\nmemoranda or briefs to them.\nThe Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual frequently diverge in their abbreviations for\ncompilations of state regulations. The Bluebook normalizes all code abbreviations to begin\nwith the state name. For example, Maine\'s compilation, as published by Weil (now owned\nby LexisNexis) is entitled "Code of Maine Rules." The ALWD Citation Manual renders that\nas "Code Me. R."; but The Bluebook converts it to "Me. Code. R." A comparable\ndivergence exists with all 12 states plus the District of Columbia for which Weil publishes\nregulations. In all instances where there are competing abbreviations, the following chart\nincludes the one that tracks the name given the compilation by the state itself or the\nprincipal publisher. In addition, while The Bluebook sometimes, but not consistently,\nincludes the name of the publisher of a compilation, e.g., Weil, in the concluding\nparentheses, ahead of the date, the following examples, following the approach of the\nALWD Citation Manual and the dominant professional practice, omit reference to the\npublisher in all cases.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas\nCalifornia | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware\nDistrict of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii\nIdaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa\nKansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine\nMaryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota\nMississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska\nNevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico\nNew York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio\nOklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island\nSouth Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas\nUtah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington\nWest Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming\n\n102\n\n\x0cAlabama\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAla. Admin. Code r. 250-X-5-.05 ({date if needed}).\nAla. Admin. Code, Regulation 250-X-.05.*\n\n* Within Alabama this altered citation format is used in decisions of the state\xe2\x80\x99s own courts\nand submissions to them.\n\nAlaska\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlaska Admin. Code tit. 8, \xc2\xa7 15.160 ({date if needed}).\n8 AAC 15.160.*\n\n* Within Alaska this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations are referred to.\n\nArizona\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAriz. Admin. Code R9-10-248 ({date if needed}).\nA.A.C. R9-10-248.*\n\n* Within Arizona this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nArkansas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCode Ark. R. \xc2\xa7 ___ ({date if needed}).\n\nCalifornia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCal. Code Regs. tit. 14, \xc2\xa7 757 ({date if needed}).\nCal. Code Regs., tit. 14, \xc2\xa7 757.*\n\n* Within California this very slightly altered citation format is used in decisions of the state\xe2\x80\x99s\nown courts and submissions to them.\n\n103\n\n\x0cColorado\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n3 Code Colo. Regs. \xc2\xa7 702-4-7-2 ({date if needed}).\n3 Colo. Code Regs. \xc2\xa7 702-4-7-2 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within Colorado this differently ordered citation format is used in decisions of the state\xe2\x80\x99s\nown courts and submissions to them.\n\nConnecticut\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nConn. Agencies Regs. \xc2\xa7 199-589-1 ({date if needed}).\nRegs., Conn. State Agencies \xc2\xa7 199-589-1.*\n\n* Within Connecticut this slightly different format is used in decisions of the state\'s own\ncourts and submissions to them.\n\nDelaware\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n14-505 Del. Code Regs. \xc2\xa7 4.1 ({date if needed}).\n14-505 Del. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 4.1.*\n\n* Within Delaware this different format is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and\nsubmissions to them.\n\nDistrict of Columbia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nD.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5, \xc2\xa7 602.1 ({date if needed}).\n5 DCMR \xc2\xa7 4.1.*\n\n* Within D.C. this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\ndistrict\'s courts and submissions to them.\n\nFlorida\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nFla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 29F-9.004 ({date if needed}).\nFla. Admin. Code R. 29F-9.004.*\n\n* Within Florida this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\n104\n\n\x0cGeorgia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nGa. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 272-2-.07(1)(u) ({date if needed}).\n\nHawaii\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nHaw. Admin. R. \xc2\xa7 38-5.2 ({date if needed}).\nHAR \xc2\xa7 17-202-1(b).*\n\n* Within Hawaii this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nIdaho\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIdaho Admin. Code r. 07.05.01.500 ({date if needed}).\nIDAPA 07.05.01.500.*\n\n* Within Idaho this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nIllinois\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIll. Admin. Code tit. 2, pt. 551 ({date if needed}).\n2 Ill. Admin. Code pt. 551 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within Illinois this slightly different format is sometimes used in decisions of the state\'s\nown courts and submissions to them.\n\nIndiana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nInd. Admin. Code tit. 45, r. 1-1-64 ({date if needed}).\n45 I.A.C. 1-1-64.*\n\n* Within Indiana this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, after an initial full citation.\n\n105\n\n\x0cIowa\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nIowa Admin. Code r. 111-7.2 ({date if needed}).\n\nKansas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nKan. Admin. Regs. \xc2\xa7 92-12-72 ({date if needed}).\nK.A.R. 92-12-72.*\n\n* Within Kansas this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nKentucky\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n405 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:120, \xc2\xa7 4(2) ({date if needed}).\n405 KAR 1:120, \xc2\xa7 4(2).*\n\n* Within Kentucky this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nLouisiana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nLa. Admin. Code tit. 7, \xc2\xa7 8791 ({date if needed}).\n\nMaine\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCode Me. R. 12 152 12 \xc2\xa7 5 ({date if needed}).\n12 152 CMR 12 \xc2\xa7 5 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within Maine this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations are referred to.\n\n106\n\n\x0cMaryland\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCode Md. Regs. 21.11.05.01.B ({date if needed}).\nCOMAR 21.11.05.01.B.*\n\n* Within Maryland this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nMassachusetts\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n105 Code Mass. Regs. \xc2\xa7 531.252 ({date if needed}).\n\nMichigan\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMich. Admin. Code r. 209.21 ({date if needed}).\nMich Admin Code, R 209.21.*\n\n* Within Michigan this slightly different format set out in an administrative order is used in\ndecisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them. For the full order see \xc2\xa7 7-500\n\nMinnesota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMinn. R. 1550.1760 ({date if needed}).\n\nMississippi\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCode Miss. R. 26-000-001 ({date if needed}).\n\nMissouri\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMo. Code Regs. tit.8, \xc2\xa7 60-2.025(9) ({date if needed}).\n8 CSR 60-2.025(9).*\n\n* Within Missouri this more economical regulation citation format, with no explicit indication\nof jurisdiction, is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them,\nunder circumstances where there is little ambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations\nand which version are referred to.\n\n107\n\n\x0cMontana\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAdmin. R. Mont. 20.25.401(4) ({date if needed}).\nARM 20.25.401(4).*\n\n* Within Montana this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nNebraska\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 8, \xc2\xa7 002.07E6 ({date if needed}).\n\nNevada\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNev. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 289.110 ({date if needed}).\nNAC 289.110.*\n\n* Within Nevada this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nNew Hampshire\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.H. Code Admin. R. Lab. 403.01 ({date if needed}).\nN.H. Admin. Rules, Lab 403.01.*\n\n* Within New Hampshire this more economical regulation citation format is used in\ndecisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Labor" substitute the abbreviation for the\ndepartment issuing the cited rules as abbreviated in them.\n\nNew Jersey\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.J. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 5:93-1.3 ({date if needed}).\nN.J.A.C. 5:93-1.3.*\n\n* Within New Jersey this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\n108\n\n\x0cNew Mexico\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.M. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 11.4.7.10 ({date if needed}).\n11.4.7.10 NMAC ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within New Mexico, this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them. Since 2000 the administrative code has\nbeen formatted with the full section number preceding the abbreviation "NMAC."\n\nNew York\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n9 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. \xc2\xa7 591.3 ({date if needed}).\n9 NYCRR 591.3.*\n\n* Within New York this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nNorth Carolina\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n17 N.C. Admin. Code 5C.0703 ({date if needed}).\n17 NCAC 5C.0703 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within North Carolina this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions\nof the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nNorth Dakota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nN.D. Admin. Code 75-02-04.1-09(2)(j) ({date if needed}).\nN.D.A.C. \xc2\xa7 75-02-04.1-09(2)(j).*\n\n* Within North Dakota this more economical regulation citation format is often used in\ndecisions of the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nOhio\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOhio Admin. Code 1501:13-1-02 ({date if needed}).\n\n109\n\n\x0cOklahoma\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOkla. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 715:10-15-10(3) ({date if needed}).\nOAC 715:10-15-10(3).*\n\n* Within Oklahoma this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations are referred to.\n\nOregon\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOr. Admin. R. 471-031-0090 ({date if needed}).\nOAR 471-031-0090.*\n\n* Within Oregon this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nPennsylvania\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n1 Pa. Code \xc2\xa7 1.4 ({date if needed}).\n\nRhode Island\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCode R.I. R. 04 000 010 ({date if needed}).\nCode R.I. Reg. 04 000 010 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within Rhode Island this slightly different citation format is sometimes used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nSouth Carolina\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nS.C. Code Regs. 38-005 ({date if needed}).\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nS.C. Code Reg. 38-005.*\n\n* Within South Carolina this slightly different citation format is sometimes used in decisions\nof the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\n110\n\n\x0cSouth Dakota\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAdmin. R. S.D. 5:02:08.19 ({date if needed}).\nARSD 5:02:08.19.*\n\n* Within South Dakota this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions\nof the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nTennessee\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0520-4-1-.03 ({date if needed}).\n\nTexas\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTex. Admin. Code tit. 16, \xc2\xa7 23.24 ({date if needed}).\n16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE \xc2\xa7 23.24.*\n\n* Within Texas this slightly altered citation format is used in decisions of the state\'s own\ncourts and submissions to them.\n\nUtah\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nUtah Admin. Code r. 212-8 ({date if needed}).\n\nVermont\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCode Vt. R. 12 003 001-6 ({date if needed}).\n4 Code of Vt. Rules 12 003 001-6.*\n\n* Within Vermont this altered citation format is used in decisions of the state\'s own courts\nand submissions to them.\n\nVirginia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n19 Va. Admin. Code 30-20-40 ({date if needed}).\n19 VAC 30-20-40.*\n\n* Within Virginia this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of the\nstate\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\n111\n\n\x0cWashington\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWash. Admin. Code 173-27-140(1) ({date if needed}).\nWAC 173-27-140(1).*\n\n* Within Washington this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions of\nthe state\'s own courts and submissions to them, under circumstances where there is little\nambiguity about which jurisdiction\'s regulations and which version are referred to.\n\nWest Virginia\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nW. Va. Code R. \xc2\xa7 127-2-3.1 ({date if needed}).\nW. Va. C.S.R. \xc2\xa7 127-2-3.1.*\n\n* Within West Virginia this more economical regulation citation format is used in decisions\nof the state\'s own courts and submissions to them.\n\nWisconsin\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nWis. Admin. Code Trans. \xc2\xa7 101.04(3) ({date if needed}).\nWis. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 Trans. 101.04(3) ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within Wisconsin, this slightly altered citation format is used in decisions of the state\'s\nown courts and submissions to them.\nWhere this example has the abbreviation for "Transportation" substitute the abbreviation for\nthe department issuing rules as abbreviated in them.\n\nWyoming\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n025-220-001 Code Wyo. R. \xc2\xa7 4(t) ({date if needed}).\n3 Weil\'s Code of Wyoming Rules, Department of Employment, Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation\nCommission, Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Rules, Regulations and Fee Schedules, ch. 1, \xc2\xa7\n4(t), 025 220 001-4 ({date if needed}).*\n\n* Within Wyoming this expanded citation format is used in decisions of the state\'s own\ncourts and submissions to them.\n\n112\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-420. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\nIllustrations\n\nAuthorization of Representative Fees, 74 Fed. Reg. 48381,\n48384 (Sept. 23, 2009) (amending 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 404.1720).\nRevisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power\nAuxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band, 75 Fed. Reg.\n3639 (Jan. April 22, 2010) (amending 47 C.F.R. pt. 15).\nAdopted Permanent Rules Relating to Telephone Assistance\nPlans, 34 Minn. Reg. 818 (Dec. 7, 2009) (to be codified at\nMinn. R. 7817.0400).\n\xc2\xa7 3-450. Agency Adjudications\nIllustrations\n\nNational Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 65, 57\nF.L.R.A. No. 3 (Mar. 12, 2001).\nAltercare of Hartville., 321 N.L.R.B. 847 (1996).\nH H 3 Trucking Inc., 345 NLRB No. 59 (Sept. 15, 2005),\nhttp://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458007a3\n38.\n\n113\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-470. Agency Report Citations\nIllustrations\n\n1981 S.E.C. Ann. Rep. 21.\nU.S. General Accounting Office, SSA: Enhanced Procedures\nand Guidance Could Improve Service and Reduce\nOverpayments to Concurrent Beneficiaries 11 (2002).\n\xc2\xa7 3-480. Executive Orders and Proclamations\nIllustrations\n\nExec. Order No. 12,893, 59 Fed. Reg. 4233 (Jan. 31, 1994).\nProclamation No. 7202, 3 C.F.R. 48 (2000).\nMich. Exec. Order No. 2003-4 (Feb. 27, 2003),\nhttp://www.michigan.gov/granholm/0,4587,7-168-2197562542--,00.html.\n\xc2\xa7 3-490. Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions\nIllustrations\n\n38 Op. Att\'y Gen. 98 (1934).\nAuthority Under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment\nAct to Close or Realign National Guard Installations\nWithout the Consent of State Governors, Op. Off. Legal\nCounsel (Aug. 10, 2005).\n86 Cal. Att\'y Gen. Op. No. 03-105 (June 19, 2003).\n\n114\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-500. Arbitration Decisions\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nIllustration\n\nUnited States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales\nCorporations," World Trade Organization No. 108 (Aug. 30,\n2002) (Falconer, Chambovey & Seung Wha Chang, Arbs.).\n\xc2\xa7 3-600. Court Rules\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nIllustrations\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).\nFed. R. Crim. P. 7(b).\nHaw. Fam. Ct. R. 106.\nN.J. Ct. R. 3:8-3.\n\xc2\xa7 3-700. Books\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-710. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\nIllustration\n\n2 Calvin W. Corman, Limitation of Actions \xc2\xa7 12.1 (1991).\nHenry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents and Senators\n290-95 (5th ed. 2008).\nWayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law \xc2\xa7 5.4\n(2d ed. 1986).\nEugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws \xc2\xa7 13.20, n.10 (5th\ned. 2010).\nFor short form examples see \xc2\xa7 6-550.\n115\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-720. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n\xc2\xa7 3-721. Works by Institutional Authors\nIllustrations\n\nEnron Corp., 2000 Annual Report 30 (2001).\nNolan J. Malone, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Evaluating\nComponents of International Migration: Consistency of\n2000 Nativity Data (2001).\nResearch and Public Policy Department, National Urban\nLeague, The Impact of Social Security on Child Poverty 5\n(2000).\n\xc2\xa7 3-722. Services\nIllustrations\n\nVill. of Grand View v. Skinner, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L.\nInst.) 20120 (2d Cir. Oct. 24, 1991).\nNorling v. Valley Contracting, [2 Wages-Hours] Lab. L.\nRep. (CCH) \xc2\xb6 35,543 (D.N.D. June 11, 1991).\nFlamme v. Wolf Ins. Agency, [Insurance] Auto. L. Rep.\n(CCH) \xc2\xb6 18,307 (Neb. Nov. 8, 1991).\n\xc2\xa7 3-723. Restatements\nIllustrations\n\nRestatement (Second) of Contracts \xc2\xa7 30 (1981).\nRestatement (Second) of Judgments \xc2\xa7 57 cmt. b, illus. 3\n(1982).\n\n116\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 3-724. Annotations\nIllustrations\n\nFrancis M. Dougherty, Annotation, Insurer\'s Tort Liability\nfor Wrongful or Negligent Issuance of Life Policy, 37\nA.L.R.4th 972, 974 (1985).\n\xc2\xa7 3-800. Articles and Other Law Journal Writing\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-810. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\nIllustration\n\nDan T. Coenen, The Constitutional Case Against Intracircuit\nNonacquiescence, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1339, 1341 (1991).\nFor short form examples see \xc2\xa7 6-560.\nAdditional Examples\nSteven L. Carter, The Right Questions in the Creation of Constitutional Meaning, 66\nB.U. L. Rev. 71 (1986).\nLinda Liefland, Career Patterns of Male and Female Lawyers, 35 Buff. L. Rev. 601\n(1986).\nDavid A. Strauss, Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression, 91 Colum. L.\nRev. 334 (1991).\nRobert F. Nagel, How Useful is Judicial Review in Free Speech Cases?, 69 Cornell L.\nRev. 302 (1984).\nMichael Pertschuk & Kenneth M. Davidson, What\'s Wrong With Conglomerate\nMergers?, 48 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (1979).\nSteven G. Calabresi & Kevin H. Rhodes, The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive,\nPlural Judiciary, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1155, 1158 (1992).\nToni M. Massaro, Shame, Culture and American Criminal Law, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 1880\n(1991).\nDan T. Coenen, The Constitutional Case Against Intracircuit Nonacquiescence, 75 Minn.\nL. Rev. 1339, 1341 (1991).\n\n117\n\n\x0cJames Wilson Harshaw III, Not Enough Time?: The Constitutionality of Short Statutes\nof Limitations for Civil Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 753 (1989).\nDavid A.J. Richards, Originalism Without Foundations, 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1373 (1990)\n(reviewing Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law).\nEdward Rubin, Television and the Experience of Citizenship, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 1155\n(1990).\nJohn J. Gibbons, Fictions, 20 Seton Hall L. Rev. 344 (1990).\nHerbert Hovenkamp, The First Great Law & Economics Movement, 42 Stan. L. Rev.\n993 (1990).\nDavid C. Williams, The Borders of the Equal Protection Clause: Indians as Peoples, 38\nUCLA L. Rev. 759 (1991).\nRichard A. Epstein, All Quiet on the Eastern Front, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 555 (1991).\nRebecca L. Brown, Separated Powers and Ordered Liberty, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1513\n(1991).\nNaomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence on\nChild Custody Decisions, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 1041 (1991).\nWilliam R. Stuntz, Warrants and Fourth Amendment Remedies, 77 Va. L. Rev. 881\n(1991).\nAllan R. Stein, Erie and Court Access, 100 Yale L.J. 1935 (1991).\nFrank H. Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 85, 114.\nSteven J. Rollins, Perceived Handicap Under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, 1988\nWis. L. Rev. 639.\n\n\xc2\xa7 3-820. Journal Articles \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\n(1) Student Writing by a Named Student\nIllustrations\n\nJohn Moustakas, Note, Group Rights in Cultural Property:\nJustifying Strict Inalienability, 74 Cornell L. Rev. 1179,\n1183 n.12 (1989).\nBetsy Vencil, Comment, 26 Nat. Resources J. 606 (1986).\n118\n\n\x0cAdditional Examples\nChristopher M. Walters, Comment, Admission of Testimony on Eyewitness\nIdentification, 73 Cal. L. Rev. 1402 (1985).\nThomas J. Mahoney, Jr., Note, The Tax Benefit Rule After Hillsboro, 37 Case W. Res. L.\nRev. 362 (1986).\nMary Morton, Note, The Hearsay Rule and Epistemological Suicide, 74 Geo. L.J. 1301\n(1986).\nScott H. Brandt, Recent Decision, 64 Temple L. Rev. 1007 (1991).\nKerwin E. Miller, Case Note, 28 How. L.J. 313 (1985).\nLorelei Van Wei, Note, Private Facts Tort: The End Is Here, 52 Ohio St. L.J. 299\n(1991).\nStephen J. Legatzke, Note, The Equitable Recoupment Doctrine in United States v.\nDalm: Where\'s the Equity, 10 Va. Tax Rev. 861 (1991).\nHelen L. Parise, Comment, The Proper Extension of Tort Liability Principles in the\nManaged Care Industry, 64 Temp. L. Rev. 977 (1991)\nJ. Brett Pritchard, Note, Conduct and Belief in the Free Exercise Clause: Developments\nand Deviations in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 76\nCornell L. Rev. 268, 281 (1990).\nBrian Victor, Case Comment, The Citizen and the Serpent: State v. Rockholt and\nEntrapment in New Jersey, 38 Rutgers L. Rev. 589 (1986).\n\n(2) Unsigned Student Writing\nIllustrations\n\nRecent Case, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1732 (1990).\nRecent Development, 1979 Wash. U.L.Q. 1161, 1164.\nRecent Development, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1723 (1991).\nAdditional Examples\nNote, Computer Intellectual Property and Conceptual Severence, 103 Harv. L. Rev.\n1046, 1057 (1990).\n\n119\n\n\x0c(3) Book Reviews\nIllustrations\n\nJohn M. Balkin, Nested Opposition, 99 Yale L.J. 1669\n(1990) (reviewing John M. Ellis, Against Deconstruction\n(1989)).\nBook Note, Generalizing Justice, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1384,\n1389 (1990) (reviewing Lenore E. Walker, Terrifying Love:\nWhy Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds\n(1989)).\nAdditional Examples\nGerald Caplan, A Review of Death by Installments by Arthur S. Miller and Jeffrey H.\nBowman, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1643 (1989) (book review).\nAnthony E. Cook, The Temptation and Fall of Original Understanding, 1990 Duke L.J.\n1163 (book review).\nTom A. Glassberg, Book Note, Defending White-Collar Crime: A Game Without Rules,\n63 Wash. U. L.Q. 831 (1985) (book review).\nBook Note, Selling One\'s Birth Rights, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 1074 (1989) (reviewing\nMartha A. Field, Surrogate Motherhood (1988)).\n\n(4) Symposia and the Like\nIllustrations\n\nProject, Nineteenth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure:\nUnited States Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 19881989, 78 Geo. L.J. 699 (1990).\nSymposium, Probability and Inference in the Law of\nEvidence, 66 B.U. L. Rev. 377 (1986).\n\n120\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-000. ABBREVIATIONS AND OMISSIONS USED IN CITATIONS\n\nContents | Index | Help | <\n\n|>\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-100. Words Abbreviated in Case Names [BB|ALWD]\nSet out below is a table of words and their Bluebook abbreviations with links to examples:\nA-B | C | D-E | F-L | M-O | P-R | S-Z\nAbbreviate the listed words wherever they appear in a party\'s name that is part of a citation. In\naddition, abbreviate any state that is included in a party name. (See \xc2\xa7 4-500.) When the case is\nbeing referred to in a sentence of the text itself rather than simply as a citation only the words\nstarred [*] in the table below should be abbreviated and then only when not at the beginning\nof a party\'s name.\nAny other word of eight letters or more not on the following list may also be abbreviated if\nthe abbreviation chosen saves substantial space and reasonably connotes the original word. As\na consequence of this Bluebook principle case names prepared according to the ALWD\nCitation Manual\'s far more extensive list of "General Abbreviations" will, for the most part,\ncomply, as well, with The Bluebook. There are a few minor points of divergence, however,\nand one systematic difference, on which the ALWD Citation Manual has recently softened its\nstance. For a number of words, but following no consistent pattern, The Bluebook uses\ncontractions (e.g., Eng\'r and Int\'l, though curiously Envtl.). Prior to the fourth edition, the\nALWD Citation Manual abbreviations used no apostrophes; all ended with periods (e.g., Engr.\nand Intl.). The fourth edition authorizes use of contractions as an alternative (e.g., Engr. or\nEng\'r, Intl. or Int\'l).\nExcept when the abbreviation list explicitly provides for the plural, the plural of a listed word\nis abbreviated by adding an "s" to the abbreviation of the singular.\nThus:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nEng\'r Eng\'rs\nEnter. Enters.\nMfr. Mfrs.\n\nA-B\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAcademy - Acad. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAdministrative or Administration - Admin. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAdministrator or Administratrix - Adm\'[r,x] \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAdvertising - Adver. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAgriculture or Agricultural - Agric. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAlternative - Alt. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAmerica or American - Am. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n121\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAnd * - & \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAssociate - Assoc. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAssociation * - Ass\'n \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAtlantic - Atl. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAuthority - Auth. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAutomobile or Automotive - Auto. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAvenue - Ave. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBankruptcy - Bankr. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBoard - Bd. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBroadcast or Broadcasting - Broad. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBrotherhood - Bhd. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBrothers * - Bros. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBuilding - Bldg. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBusiness - Bus. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCasualty - Cas. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCenter or Centre - Ctr. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCentral - Cent. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nChemical - Chem. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCoalition - Coal. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCollege - Coll. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCommission - Comm\'n \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCommissioner - Comm\'r \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCommittee - Comm. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCommunication - Commc\'n \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCommunity - Cmty. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCompany * - Co. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCompensation - Comp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCondominium - Condo. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCongress or Congressional - Cong. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nConsolidated - Consol. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nConstruction - Constr. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nContinental - Cont\'l \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCooperative - Coop. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCorporation * - Corp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCorrection, Correctional, or Corrections - Corr. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCounty - Cnty. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\nC\n\nD-E\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nDefense - Def. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDepartment - Dep\'t \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDetention - Det. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDevelopment - Dev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDirector - Dir. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDiscount - Disc. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n122\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nDistributor or Distributing - Distrib. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDistrict - Dist. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDivision - Div. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEast or Eastern - E. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEconomic, Economical, Economics, or Economy - Econ. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEducation or Educational - Educ. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nElectric, Electrical, Electricity, or Electronic - Elec. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEmployee - Emp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEmployer or Employment - Emp\'[r,t] \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEngineer - Eng\'r \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEngineering - Eng\'g \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEnterprise - Enter. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEntertainment - Entm\'t \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEnvironment - Env\'t \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEnvironmental - Envtl. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEquality - Equal. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nEquipment - Equip. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nExaminer - Exam\'r \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nExchange - Exch. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nExecutive - Exec. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nExecutor or Executrix - Ex\'[r,x] \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nExport, Exportation, or Exporter - Exp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\nF-L\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nFederal - Fed. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nFederation - Fed\'n \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nFidelity - Fid. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nFinance, Financial, or Financing - Fin. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nFoundation - Found. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGender - Gend. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGeneral - Gen. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGovernment - Gov\'t \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGroup - Grp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGuaranty - Guar. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nHospital - Hosp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nHousing - Hous. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nImport, Importation, or Importer - Imp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIncorporated * - Inc. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIndemnity - Indem. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIndependent - Indep. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIndustry, Industries, or Industrial - Indus. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nInformation - Info. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nInstitute or Institution - Inst. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nInsurance - Ins. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nInternational - Int\'l \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nInvestment - Inv. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nLaboratory - Lab. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n123\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nLiability - Liab. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nLimited * - Ltd. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nLitigation - Litig. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\nM-O\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMachine or Machinery - Mach. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMaintenance - Maint. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nManagement - Mgmt. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nManufacturer - Mfr. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nManufacturing - Mfg. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMaritime - Mar. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMarket - Mkt. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMarketing - Mktg. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMechanic or Mechanical - Mech. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMedical or Medicine - Med. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMemorial - Mem\'l \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMerchant, Merchandise, or Merchandising - Merch. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMetropolitan - Metro. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMortgage - Mortg. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMunicipal - Mun. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMutual - Mut. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNational - Nat\'l \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNorth or Northern - N. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNortheast or Northeastern - Ne. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNorthwest or Northwestern - Nw. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNumber * - No. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOpinion - Op. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOrganization or Organizing - Org. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\nP-R\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nPacific - Pac. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPartnership - P\'ship \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPerson, Personal, or Personnel - Pers. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPharmaceutics or Pharmaceuticals - Pharm. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPreserve or Preservation - Pres. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nProbation - Prob. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nProduct or Production - Prod. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nProfessional - Prof\'l \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nProperty - Prop. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nProtection - Prot. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPublic - Pub. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPublication - Publ\'n \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPublishing - Publ\'g \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRailroad - R.R. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n124\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nRailway - Ry. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRefining - Ref. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRegional - Reg\'l \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRehabilitation - Rehab. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nReproduction or Reproductive - Reprod. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nResource or Resources - Res. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRestaurant - Rest. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRetirement - Ret. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRoad - Rd. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSavings - Sav. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSchool or Schools - Sch. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nScience - Sci. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSecretary - Sec\'y \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSecurity or Securities - Sec. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nService - Serv. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nShareholder - S\'holder \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSocial - Soc. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSociety - Soc\'y \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSouth or Southern - S. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSoutheast or Southeastern - Se. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSouthwest or Southwestern - Sw. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSteamship or Steamships - S.S. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nStreet - St. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSubcommittee - Subcomm. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSurety - Sur. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSystem or Systems - Sys. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\nS\n\nT-Z\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nTechnology - Tech. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTelecommunication - Telecomm. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTelephone or Telegraph - Tel. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTemporary - Temp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTownship - Twp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTranscontinental - Transcon. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTransport or Transportation - Transp. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTrustee - Tr. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTurnpike - Tpk. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUniform - Unif. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUniversity - Univ. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUtility - Util. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nVillage - Vill. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWest or Western - W. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\n125\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-200. Abbreviations for Words Used in Providing Case Histories [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents |\n\nIndex | Help | < | >\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nacquiescing - acq.\naffirmed - aff\'d\naffirming - aff\'g\ncertiorari - cert.\njurisdiction - juris.\nmemorandum - mem.\nnonacquiescing - nonacq.\nprobable - prob.\nrehearing - reh\'g\nreversed - rev\'d\nreversing - rev\'g\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-300. Words Omitted in Case Names [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Horn v. N.Y. Times Co., 100 N.Y.2d 85, 790 N.E.2d 753, 760 N.Y.S.2d 378 (2003).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Horn v. The N.Y. Times Co., 100 N.Y.2d 85, 790 N.E.2d 753, 760 N.Y.S.2d 378 (2003).\nbut\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re The N.Y. Times Co., 837 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1988).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Barlow v. The Queen, [2009] UKPC 30.\n\nPrinciple 1: Omit "the" when used as the first word of a party name\nexcept:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nwhen part of name of an object subject to in rem proceeding or\n"The King/Queen".\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(2) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Colonial Vill., Ltd. v. Washington Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 2009 Ohio 4975.\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Colonial Vill., Ltd. v. Washington Cnty. Bd. of Revision, Colonial Terrace Apartments v.\nWashington Cnty. Bd. of Revision, Colonial Terrace Apartments II v. Washington Cnty. Bd.\nof Revision, 2009 Ohio 4975.\n\nPrinciple 2: Omit subsequent actions listed after the first one (when a case consolidates\nseveral different actions).\n\n126\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-300(3) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Buenz v. Frontline Transp. Co., 227 Ill. 2d 302, 882 N.E.2d 525 (2008).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Buenz v. Frontline Transp. Co., China Ocean Shipping Co. Ams., 227 Ill. 2d 302, 882\nN.E.2d 525 (2008).\n\nPrinciple 3: Omit all parties after the first one listed on each side.\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(4) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re 123 Court St., 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re 123 Court St., Ithaca, New York, the Car, and other chattels, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123\n(1999) (fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 State v. 123 Court St., 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 State v. Property known as 123 Court St., Ithaca, N.Y., 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999)\n(fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 4: In "in rem" cases:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOmit all items after the first one listed.\nOmit all words other than the common street address in "in rem" cases involving real\nestate.\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(5) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re Altman, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re Altman on behalf of Harrison, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Vizier ex rel. Prince v. Champion, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Vizier on behalf of Prince v. Champion, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Thomas ex rel. Baldwin v. Sommers, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re Thomas ex rel. Baldwin v. Sommers, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re Anita, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 In the matter of Anita, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 5: Treat procedural phrases as follows:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nOmit all procedural phrases other than the first.\nReduce all remaining procedural phrases that are roughly equivalent to "on behalf of"\nor "for the use of" to ex rel.\nIn adversarial proceedings omit all procedural phrases other than ex rel.\n127\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nReduce all remaining procedural phrases that are roughly equivalent to "In the matter\nof," "Petition of," and the like to In re.\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(6) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Smith v. Jones, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Smith v. Jones, Executor, 00 N.Y.S.3d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 6: Omit terms like "trustee," "executor," or "administrator" that described a named\nparty.\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(7) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Dukakis v. Massachusetts, 00 U.S. 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Dukakis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 00 U.S. 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Dukakis v. Commonwealth, 00 Mass. 123, 00 N.E.2d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Dukakis v. Massachusetts, 00 Mass. 123, 00 N.E.2d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 7: Omit "State of" or its equivalents\nexcept: when citing decisions of the courts of the state in question, in which case omit the\nname of the state instead and keep "State" or the equivalent term.\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(8) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Angelo v. Common Council of Syracuse, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123\n(1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Angelo v. Common Council of City of Syracuse, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00\nN.Y.S.2d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Tarson v. City of Syracuse Dept. of Pub. Works, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00\nN.Y.S.2d 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Tarson v. Syracuse Dept. of Pub. Works, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d\n123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 8: Omit "City of" or its equivalents\nexcept: when the phrase begins a party name.\n\n128\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-300(9) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Glen v. Sewer District, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999) (fictional\ncitation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Glen v. Sewer District of East Lansing, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123\n(1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 9: Omit all locational phrases\nexcept:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nthose left following application of the the prior rule about "City of" or\nwhen the omission would leave only one word in the name.\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(10) Examples\n\n\xe2\x80\x93 Ivan v. United States, 00 U.S. 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Ivan v. United States of America, 00 U.S. 123 (1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 10: Omit "of America" after "United States".\n\xc2\xa7 4-300(11) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Smith v. Jones, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999) (fictional\ncitation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Smith v. Jenny Q. Jones, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999)\n(fictional citation).\nbut\n\xe2\x80\x93 Smith v. Jenny Q. Jones, Inc., 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999)\n(fictional citation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 In re Anita Q., 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999) (fictional\ncitation).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Smith v. Chun Quon, 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999) (fictional\ncitation).\n\nPrinciple 11: Omit first and middle names or initials of individuals\nexcept:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nwhen included in the name of a business\nwhen the party\'s surname is abbreviated\nwhen the party\'s given name follows the surname (as is true of Chinese, Korean and\nVietnamese names, for example).\n\n129\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-300(12) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 Werner v. Tarson Pools Co., 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1999)\n(fictional citation).\nnot\n\xe2\x80\x93 Werner v. Tarson Pools Co., Ltd., 00 N.Y.3d 123, 00 N.E.2d 123, 00 N.Y.S.2d 123\n(1999) (fictional citation).\n\nPrinciple 12: Omit "Inc.," "Ltd.," "N.A.," or "F.S.B.," and similar terms if the name also\ncontains words like "Co.," "Corp.," "R.R.," "Bros.," or "Ass\'n" that indicate a business firm.\n\xc2\xa7 4-400. Reporters and Courts [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-410. Reporter and Court Abbreviations \xe2\x80\x93 Federal Courts\nSupreme Court: \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCourts of Appeals: \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDistrict Courts: \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOther: \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\xc2\xa7 4-420. Reporter and Court Abbreviations \xe2\x80\x93 The States and D.C.\nAll fifty states: \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\xc2\xa7 4-500. State Abbreviations [BB|ALWD]\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nAlabama - Ala. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nAlaska - Alaska \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nArizona - Ariz. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nArkansas - Ark. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCalifornia - Cal. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nColorado - Colo. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nConnecticut - Conn. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDelaware - Del. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDistrict of Columbia - D.C. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nFlorida - Fla. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGeorgia - Ga. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nHawaii - Haw. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIdaho - Idaho \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIllinois - Ill. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIndiana - Ind. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nIowa - Iowa \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nKansas - Kan. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nKentucky - Ky. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nLouisiana - La. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n130\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nMaine - Me. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMaryland - Md. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMassachusetts - Mass. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMichigan - Mich. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMinnesota - Minn. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMississippi - Miss. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMissouri - Mo. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMontana - Mont. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNebraska - Neb. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNevada - Nev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNew Hampshire - N.H. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNew Jersey - N.J. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNew Mexico - N.M. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNew York - N.Y. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNorth Carolina - N.C. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNorth Dakota - N.D. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOhio - Ohio \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOklahoma - Okla. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOregon - Or. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nPennsylvania - Pa. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRhode Island - R.I. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSouth Carolina - S.C. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSouth Dakota - S.D. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTennessee - Tenn. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTexas - Tex. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUtah - Utah \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nVermont - Vt. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nVirginia - Va. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWashington - Wash. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWest Virginia - W. Va. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWisconsin - Wis. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWyoming - Wyo. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-600. Months [BB|ALWD]\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nJanuary - Jan.\nFebruary - Feb.\nMarch - Mar.\nApril - Apr.\nMay - May\nJune - June\nJuly - July\nAugust - Aug.\nSeptember - Sept.\nOctober - Oct.\nNovember - Nov.\nDecember - Dec.\n131\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-700. Frequently Cited Journals [BB|ALWD]\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nBoston University Law Review - B.U. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nBuffalo Law Review - Buff. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCalifornia Law Review - Cal. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCase Western Reserve Law Review - Case W. Res. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nColumbia Law Review - Colum. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nCornell Law Review - Cornell L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nDuke Law Journal - Duke L.J. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nFordham Law Review - Fordham L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGeorgetown Law Journal - Geo. L.J. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nGeorge Washington Law Review - Geo. Wash. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nHarvard Law Review - Harv. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nHoward Law Journal - How. L.J. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMichigan Law Review - Mich. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nMinnesota Law Review - Minn. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nNew York University Law Review - N.Y.U. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nOhio State Law Journal - Ohio St. L.J. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nRutgers Law Review - Rutgers L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSeton Hall Law Review - Seton Hall L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nStanford Law Review - Stan. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nSupreme Court Review - Sup. Ct. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTemple Law Review - Temp. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nTexas Law Review - Tex. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUCLA Law Review - UCLA L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUniversity of Chicago Law Review - U. Chi. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review - U. Pa. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nVanderbilt Law Review - Vand. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nVirginia Law Review - Va. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWashington University Law Quarterly - Wash. U. L.Q. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nWisconsin Law Review - Wis. L. Rev. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\nYale Law Journal - Yale L.J. \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb\n\n132\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-800. Spacing between Abbreviated Words and Periods in\nAbbreviations Contents | Index | Help | < | >\n\xc2\xa7 4-810. Spacing between Abbreviated Words [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 4-810(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 David\xe2\x80\xa2A.J.\xe2\x80\xa2Richards,\xe2\x80\xa2Originalism\xe2\x80\xa2Without\xe2\x80\xa2Foundations,\xe2\x80\xa265\xe2\x80\xa2N.Y.U.\xe2\x80\xa2L.\xe2\x80\xa2Rev.\n\xe2\x80\xa21373\xe2\x80\xa2(1990)\xe2\x80\xa2(reviewing\xe2\x80\xa2Robert\xe2\x80\xa2Bork,\xe2\x80\xa2The\xe2\x80\xa2Tempting\xe2\x80\xa2of\xe2\x80\xa2America:\xe2\x80\xa2The\xe2\x80\xa2Political\n\xe2\x80\xa2Seduction\xe2\x80\xa2of\xe2\x80\xa2the\xe2\x80\xa2Law).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Orange\xe2\x80\xa2Cnty.\xe2\x80\xa2Agric.\xe2\x80\xa2Soc\'y,\xe2\x80\xa2Inc.\xe2\x80\xa2v.\xe2\x80\xa2Comm\'r,\xe2\x80\xa2893\xe2\x80\xa2F.2d\xe2\x80\xa2529\xe2\x80\xa2(2d\xe2\x80\xa2Cir.\xe2\x80\xa21990).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Natural\xe2\x80\xa2Res.\xe2\x80\xa2Def.\xe2\x80\xa2Council\xe2\x80\xa2v.\xe2\x80\xa2NRC,\xe2\x80\xa2216\xe2\x80\xa2F.3d\xe2\x80\xa21180\xe2\x80\xa2(D.C.\xe2\x80\xa2Cir.\xe2\x80\xa22000).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 = space\n\nPrinciple 1: Successive words abbreviated with a single capital letter are normally not\nseparated from one another with a space.\nPrinciple 2: Longer abbreviations are separated from one another and from single letter\nabbreviations with a space.\nPrinciple 3: In journal titles, successive single letters that refer to an entity are separated from\nother single letter abbreviations with a space.\nPrinciple 4: Numbers, including ordinal numbers (2d, 4th), are treated as single letters.\n\xc2\xa7 4-820. Periods in Abbreviations [BB|ALWD]\n\xc2\xa7 4-820(1) Examples\n\xe2\x80\x93 David A.J. Richards, Originalism Without Foundations, 65 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1373 (1990)\n(reviewing Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Orange Cnty. Agric. Soc\'y, Inc. v. Comm\'r, 893 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\xe2\x80\x93 Natural Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 216 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 2000).\n\nPrinciple 1: In general abbreviations should end in a period.\nPrinciple 2: However, in abbreviations that are contractions ending with an apostrophe and\nthe last letter of the word should not be followed by a period.\nPrinciple 3: In addition, entities that are commonly referred to by their initials may be\nabbreviated using those initials without periods.\n\n133\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 4-900. Documents from Earlier Stages of a Case [BB|ALWD]\nThe most frequently cited and their abbreviations are:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAffidavit - Aff.\nAnswer - Answer\nBrief - Br.\nComplaint - Compl.\nCourt - Ct.\nDeclaration - Decl.\nDefendant - Def.\nDeposition - Dep.\nDiscovery - Disc.\nDocument - Doc.\nExhibit - Ex.\nHearing - Hr\'g\nInterrogatory - Interrog.\nMemorandum - Mem.\nMotion - Mot.\nOpinion - Op.\nPetition - Pet.\nPlaintiff - Pl.\nRecord - R.\nTranscript - Tr.\n\n134\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 5-000. UNDERLINING AND ITALICS [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nWhen briefs and memoranda were prepared on typewriters, emphasized text was underlined.\nWhile older citation reference works may still call for underlining, that format has largely\nbeen replaced by the use of italics, made possible by word-processing software and modern\nprinters.\n\xc2\xa7 5-100. In Citations\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThe following citation elements should be italicized:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\ncase names (including procedural phrases)\nbook titles\ntitles of journal articles\nintroductory signals used in citation sentences or clauses\nprior or subsequent history explanatory phrases\nwords or phrases attributing one cited authority to another source\nthe cross reference words: "id.," "supra," and "infra"\n\nIf underlining is used instead of italics it should continue under successive words that are part\nof the same phrase but break between items. When "e.g." appears with another signal the two\ntogether are treated as a single item. Punctuation that is part of any of the above elements is\nitalicized along with it, but punctuation that separates that element from other parts of the\ncitation should not be.\n\xc2\xa7 5-200. In Text\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThe following words or phrases should be italicized when they appear in the text of a brief or\nlegal memorandum:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nreferences to titles or case names in the text without full citation (even those which\nwould, in full citation, not be underlined)\nforeign words that have not been assimilated into lawyer jargon\nquoted words that were italicized in the original\nemphasized words\n\n135\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 5-300. Citation Items Not Italicized\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nThe following citation types or elements should not be italicized:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nconstitutions\nstatutes\nrestatements\nnames of reporters and services\nnames of journals\nrules\nregulations\nother administrative materials\n\nIndeed, all items for which italics is not specified should appear without it.\n\n136\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 6-000. PLACING CITATIONS IN CONTEXT\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 6-100. Quoting [BB|ALWD]\nPrinciple 1: Short quotations (fewer than 50 words) are generally enclosed in quotation\nmarks \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. Any quotation marks within such a quote are converted to a single mark (\').\nPrinciple 2: Longer quotations (50 words or more) and shorter quotations to which the author\nwishes to give special emphasis are set off from the text by being indented both right and left\n(without quotation marks) \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\nPrinciple 3: Both forms of quotation are followed immediately by a citation to the quoted\nwork. (With an indented quotation the citation is not part of the indented material, but begins\nflush with the left margin \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.) When the quoted work itself includes a quotation, that\nquotation should if possible be attributed to the original work in a parenthetical clause. And\nwhen that quotation shows alterations or omissions that should be indicated with the\nparenthetical clause "(alteration in original)".\nPrinciple 4: Changes to a quoted work are shown with square brackets and ellipses (" . . . ")\n\xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. When omitted material comes at the beginning of a quotation the omission is shown by\ncapitalizing the first letter of the first quoted word and placing that letter in brackets rather\nthan with ellipses. Changes in emphasis and omissions of citations or footnotes are indicated\nby parenthetical clauses.\n\xc2\xa7 6-200. Citations and Related Text [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nPrinciple 1: While footnote citation is the norm for law journal and treatise writing, citations\nin memoranda and briefs are integrated with the text \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\nPrinciple 2: Under most circumstances citations should take the form of citation sentences,\nbeginning with capital letters and ending with periods, directly following the sentence they\nsupport or the quotation they identify \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. When a citation or citations relate to a portion of\na sentence they should be embedded in the sentence as a citation clause, set off by commas,\ndirectly following that portion \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\nPrinciple 3: Multiple citations whether within a citation sentence or a citation clause are set\noff from one another with semi-colons \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\n\xc2\xa7 6-300. Signals [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nCiting an authority without any preceding word to clarify or qualify its connection to the text\nrepresents that the citation directly states the proposition or identifies a quotation or authority\nwith which the citation is associated \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. There is a standard set of clarifying or qualifying\nwords used with citations. Placed in front of a citation these words are italicized (or\nunderlined). When instead they form the verb of a sentence that includes the citation they are\nnot italicized (or underlined). No comma separates the signal from the rest of the citation,\n137\n\n\x0cexcept for "e.g." which needs a comma before and after it. Only the signal beginning a\ncitation sentence has its initial letter capitalized. The standard clarifying or qualifying words\ninclude:\n(a) Signals that indicate support.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nE.g.,\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAccord\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAuthority states the proposition with which the citation is associated. Other\nauthorities, not cited, do as well \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. "E.g." used with other signals (in which\ncase it is preceded by a comma) similarly indicates the existence of other\nauthorities not cited.\nUsed following citation to authority referred to in text when there are\nadditional authorities that either state or clearly support the proposition with\nwhich the citation is associated, but the text quotes only one. Similarly, the law\nof one jurisdiction may be cited as being in accord with that of another \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\n\nSee\nAuthority supports the proposition with which the citation is associated either\nimplicitly or in the form of dicta \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\nSee also\no Authority is additional support for the proposition with which the citation is\nassociated (but less direct than that indicated by "see" or "accord"). "See also"\nis commonly used to refer readers to authorities already cited or discussed\n\xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. The use of a parenthetical explanation of the source material\'s relevance\nfollowing a citation introduced by "see also" is encouraged.\nCf.\no Authority supports by analogy "Cf." literally means "compare." The citation\nwill only appear relevant to the reader if it is explained. Consequently,\nparenthetical explanations of the analogy are strongly recommended \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n(b) Signals that suggest a useful comparison.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCompare ... with ...\no Comparison of authorities that supports proposition. Either side of the\ncomparison can have more than one item linked with "and" \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb. Parenthetical\nexplanations of comparison are strongly recommended.\n\n(c) Signals that indicate contradiction.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nContra\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nBut see\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAuthority directly states the contrary of the proposition with which the citation\nis associated \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\nAuthority clearly supports the contrary of the proposition with which citation is\nassociated \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\n\nBut cf.\no\n\nAuthority supports the contrary of the position with which the citation is\nassociated by analogy. Parenthetical explanations of the analogy are strongly\n138\n\n\x0crecommended. The word "but" is omitted from the signal when it follows\nanother negative signal \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\n(d) Signals that indicate background material.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nSee generally\no Authority presents useful background. Parenthetical explanations of the source\nmaterials\' relevance are encouraged \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\n\n(e) Combining a signal with "e.g."\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nE.g.,\no\n\nIn addition to the cited authority, there are numerous others that state, support,\nor contradict the proposition (with the other signal indicating which) but\ncitation to them would not be helpful or necessary. The preceding signal is\nseparated from "e.g." by a comma \xc2\xabe.g.\xc2\xbb.\n\n\xc2\xa7 6-400. Order [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nSometimes multiple citations or "strings" are necessary.\nPrinciple 1: When a series of citations includes material grouped after more than one signal,\nthe signals should appear in the order in which they are listed in \xc2\xa7 6-300.\nPrinciple 2: Section 6-300 breaks signals (and their references) into four different "types": (a)\nsupportive; (b) comparative; (c) contradictory; and (d) background. Signals of the same type\nmust be strung together within a single citation sentence and separated by semicolons.\nAccording to The Bluebook signals of different types should be grouped in different citation\nsentences. In other words, a period should end the string of authorities indicating support, and\nany authorities in contradiction, preceded by the appropriate signal, should follow in a\nseparate citation sentence. The ALWD Citation Manual allows all to be contained in a single\nsentence with only a semicolon separating the four different categories and their signals.\nPrinciple 3: When more than one citation is preceded by the same signal, the citations are\ngrouped by type in the following order:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nconstitutions (U.S. first, followed by states in alphabetical order*)\nstatutes (U.S. first, followed by states in alphabetical order*)\ncases (U.S. first, followed by states in alphabetical order* and grouped within each\njurisdiction by court in descending order, with decisions of a single court** arranged\nchronologically, most recent first)\nregulations (U.S. first, followed by states in alphabetical order*)\nbooks (arranged alphabetically by last name of author)\njournal articles (arranged alphabetically by last name of author)\n\n* If the writing concerns the law of a particular state, citations to the constitution, statutes,\ncases, and regulations of that state should, however, precede the rest.\n139\n\n\x0c** The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual take opposing positions on whether the\ncircuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and different districts of the U.S. District Courts should\nbe treated as separate courts for this purpose. The Bluebook states without qualification that\nall circuits should be viewed as one court, while the ALWD Citation Manual specifies that\neach circuit and district be treated as a separate court. Neither approach works in all cases. In\na brief to the Second Circuit of the U.S. Courts of Appeals or a U.S. District Court on whom\nits decisions are binding, decisions of that circuit should be treated as one court, while those\nof other circuits can reasonably be lumped together as those of a single court. The Bluebook\'s\napproach, as applied to courts with subunits, is inappropriate in any context where decisions\nof all those circuits or districts or divisions do not carry the same precedential weight.\n\xc2\xa7 6-500. Short Form Citations [BB|ALWD]\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nPrinciple: Once a full citation to a case, statute, regulation, book or journal article has been\nprovided, subsequent references within the same discussion can be less complete. The less\ncomplete or "short form" citation must clearly identify the referenced work. Short form\ncitations should only be used where the reader will find it easy to return to the full citation.\nShort form examples:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nCases\nConstitutions and Statutes\nRegulations\nBooks\nJournal Articles\n\n140\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 6-520. Short Form Citations - Cases\nFull Citation\nBrown v. Helvering, 291 U.S. 193, 203 (1934).\nShort Form Citations\nBrown, 291 U.S. at 203.\n291 U.S. at 203.\nId. at 203.\nThe short form should include an identifiable portion of the case name unless it appears in the\npassage supported by the citation or it follows immediately after the full citation so that use of\n"id." is appropriate.\n\nFull Citation\nOpticians Ass\'n of Am. v. Ind. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1990).\nShort Form Citation\nOpticians Ass\'n, 920 F.2d at 187.\n\nFull Citation\nUnited States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992).\nShort Form Citation\nWilson, 503 U.S. at 334-36.\nnot:\nUnited States, 503 U.S. at 334-36\nDo NOT use the name of a governmental or other common litigant as the short form name.\n\n141\n\n\x0cFull Citation\nHansen v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 239 Conn. 549, 687 A.2d 1262 (1995).\nShort Form Citation\nHansen, 239 Conn. at 551, 687 A.2d at 1269.\n239 Conn. at 551, 687 A.2d at 1269.\nId. at 551, 687 A.2d at 1269.\nIn cases of parallel citation include both in the short form.\n\xc2\xa7 6-530. Short Form Citations - Constitutions and Statutes\nFull Citation\nU.S. Const. art. III, \xc2\xa7 2, cl. 2.\nShort Form Citation\nId.\n\nFull Citation\nNarcotics Penalties and Enforcement Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, \xc2\xa7 1002, 100 Stat.\n3207-2 (1986).\nShort Form Citations\n\xc2\xa7 1002.\nNarcotics Penalties and Enforcement Act \xc2\xa7 1002.\n\xc2\xa7 1002, 100 Stat. 3207-2.\n\n142\n\n\x0cFull Citation\n42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C) (2013).\nShort Form Citations\n42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C).\n\xc2\xa7 405(c)(2)(C).\n\nFull Citation\nVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9A, \xc2\xa7 1-101 (2012).\nShort Form Citations\nTitle 9A, \xc2\xa7 1-101.\n\xc2\xa7 1-101.\n\nFull Citation\nH.R. 3957, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1990).\nShort Form Citation\nH.R. 3957.\n\xc2\xa7 6-540. Short Form Citations - Regulations\nFull Citation\n46 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 292 (2012).\nShort Form Citations\n46 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 292.\n\xc2\xa7 292.\n\n143\n\n\x0cFull Citation\nFederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection, 57 Fed. Reg. 26,609\n(1992).\nShort Form Citation\nFederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 57 Fed. Reg. 26,609.\n\xc2\xa7 6-550. Short Form Citations - Books\nFull Citation\nE. Allen Farnsworth, Contracts \xc2\xa7 9.3 (1982).\nShort Form Citations\nId.\nId. \xc2\xa7 9.4.\nUse supra if not referring to the immediately preceding authority.\n\nFull Citation\nHenry Julian Abraham, Justices, Presidents and Senators 390-95 (5th ed. 2008).\nShort Form Citations\nAbraham, supra.\nAbraham, supra at 390.\nUse id. if the authority is the same as the immediately preceding authority. Use supra if not\nreferring to the immediately preceding authority.\n\n144\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 6-560. Short Form Citations - Journal Articles\nFull Citation\nStephen J. Legatzke, Note, The Equitable Recoupment Doctrine in United States v. Dalm:\nWhere\'s the Equity, 10 Va. Tax Rev. 861 (1991).\nShort Form Citations\nId.\nId. at 862.\nLegatzke, supra.\nLegatzke, supra at 862.\nUse id. if the authority is the same as the immediately preceding authority. Use supra if not\nreferring to the immediately preceding authority.\n\xc2\xa7 6-600. Context Examples\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nAdapted from Respondent\'s Brief, Int\'l Soc\'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee,\n505 U.S. 672 (1992).\nSince the 1974 decision in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974), this Court\nhas relied upon public forum analysis to decide cases in which persons have sought to use\ngovernment property for expressive activity in violation of rules which restrict or prohibit\nsuch activity. See United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 725 (1990).\nThis Court has held that a site owned by the government is a traditional public forum only if it\nis among "those places which \'by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to\nassembly and debate."\' Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802, quoting, Perry Educ. Ass\'n, 460 U.S. at 45.\nThis description hearkens back to the often-quoted passage from Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496\n(1939):\nWherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust\nfor the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly,\ncommunicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the\nstreets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities,\nrights, and liberties of citizens.\nId. at 515.\nThe Port Authority airports\' sole purpose of facilitating air travel is reflected in all of their\ncharacteristics - planning, operation, design, usage, financing, lack of integration with\n145\n\n\x0cneighboring communities, presence of captive audiences, and unique congestion and security\nproblems. These characteristics both attest to the special purpose of the Port Authority air\nterminals and distinguish them from traditional public fora. In previous cases, this Court has\nexamined the nature of alleged public fora to determine their public forum status. See, e.g.,\nKokinda, 497 U.S. 720; Greer, 424 U.S. 824; Lehman, 418 U.S. 298 .\n4. Captive Audiences\nThe presence of captive audiences in air terminals distinguish such terminals from the\ntraditional public fora of streets and parks. Captive audiences exist throughout the air\nterminals \xe2\x80\x93 at enplaning and deplaning points, at ticket counters, security checkpoints,\nbaggage conveyor belts, and car rental and other ground transportation counters. At all of\nthese locations, travelers tend to remain in place in order to complete travel-related tasks\n(Superintendent\'s Statement at 58-60 (JA 458); Anderson Affidavit at 9 (JA 488)). See\nDoughty, supra note 13, at 7. As noted by Justice Douglas with regard to the patrons of public\ntransportation vehicles, the rights of such captive audiences "to be free from forced intrusions\non their privacy" would be violated if they were forced to be the object of uninvited\npersuasion. Lehman, 418 U.S. at 307 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring); cf. Consolidated\nEdison Co. of N.Y. v. Public Serv. Comm\'n, 447 U.S. 530, 542 (1980).\nThis Court has explicitly stated that a public forum does not exist merely because persons are\nfreely permitted to enter a government owned site. Indeed, the Court has ". . . expressly\nrejected the suggestion that \'whenever members of the public are permitted freely to visit a\nplace owned or operated by the Government, then that place becomes a "public forum" for\npurposes of the First Amendment.\'" United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 686 (1985)\n(quoting Greer, 424 U.S. at 836); see also United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983).\nFinally, it is equally clear that the usefulness of government property as a site for expressive\nactivity does not make such property a traditional public forum under applicable Supreme\nCourt precedent. In Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789\n(1984), which held that lampposts are not public fora for the posting of signs, this Court\nrejected in unequivocal terms the proposition that a publicly-owned facility is a public forum\nbecause it would be a useful place for the communication of ideas: "Lampposts can of course\nbe used as signposts, but the mere fact that government property can be used as a vehicle for\ncommunication does not mean that the Constitution requires such uses to be permitted. Cf.\nUnited States Postal Serv. v. Greenburgh Civic Ass\'ns, 453 U.S. at 131." Id. at 814 (footnote\nomitted); see also Albertini, 472 U.S. at 686; Greer, 424 U.S. at 838 n.10.\nPlaintiffs\' reference to the alleged decline of downtown street life by the development of\nskyways and other street alternatives in city centers is clearly irrelevant to the issue at bar.\nThe merits or demerits of such developments should be debated by planning commissions or\nzoning boards who determine the nature of our cities. See, e.g., William H. Whyte, City 193221 (1988). Any perceived failure of responsible planning bodies to foster the development of\nurban streetscapes provides no basis for holding that the Port Authority air terminals are\npublic fora.\nSecond, the alleged role of rail terminals as public fora is irrelevant because rail terminals,\nunlike Port Authority air terminals, are located in the center of a city. If the concourse of\n146\n\n\x0cGrand Central Station or the waiting room of a small town rail depot served as a meeting\nplace for people going about their daily business, it was because the rest of the community\nwas a sidewalk\'s width away. See H. Roger Grant & Charles H. Bohi, The Country Railroad\nStation in America 8-9 (1978); William D. Middleton, Grand Central 109 (1978). Clearly, the\nsame is not true of the Port Authority\'s air terminals. Although two people in Midtown\nManhattan might agree to meet "under the golden clock" of Grand Central Terminal whether\nor not they were going to take a train, see William D. Middleton, Grand Central 109 (1978),\nit is highly unlikely that two people who had no intention of taking air flights would agree to\nmeet at any of the Port Authority airports.\nMoreover, contrary to Plaintiff\'s assertions, as an historical matter, it is far from clear that rail\nstations and terminals served as public fora in the First Amendment sense. Plaintiffs fail to\ndocument that solicitation and distribution of literature actually occurred at railroad terminals.\nPlaintiffs also ignore the fact that railroad terminals were privately owned, and, therefore, any\nsolicitation or distribution of literature which took place was at the pleasure of the private\nentities which owned the terminals. See generally United Transp. Union v. Long Island R.R.,\n455 U.S. 678, 686 (1982); H. Roger Grant & Charles H. Bohi, The Country Railroad Station\nin America 11-15 (1978).(22)\nThe distribution of literature has similar effects on pedestrian flow. Air passengers must alter\ntheir path to avoid the distributor, or pause to take literature and perhaps stop to read it or to\nthrow it in a wastebin. Significantly, Plaintiff\'s themselves concede that "literature distribution\n. . . might well be as disruptive to a traveller \'hurrying to catch a plane or to arrange ground\ntransportation\' as a request for a voluntary donation." Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 22\n(citation omitted). And, of course, if Plaintiffs were entitled to engage in such activity, others\nwould have the right to do so as well. As noted by this Court in Heffron v. ISKCON, "The\ninquiry must not only involve ISKCON, but all other organizations that would be entitled to\ndistribute, sell or solicit if the . . . rule may not be enforced with respect to ISKCON." 452\nU.S. 640, 654 (1981); accord Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288,\n296-97 (1984).\nIt is well established that even in a public forum, the government is not powerless to regulate\nFirst Amendment activity. Although it is true that all communication may not be excluded\nfrom a public forum, content-neutral regulations may be enforced if they are reasonable and\nnarrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests, and leave open ample alternative\nchannels of communication. E.g., Perry Educ. Ass\'n v. Perry Local Educators\' Ass\'n, 460\nU.S. at 46; Clark, 468 U.S. at 293. The Port Authority\'s restriction of solicitation and\ndistribution of literature to sidewalks adjacent to air terminal buildings satisfies this test.\nAdapted from Children of Bedford, Inc. v. Petromelis, 77 N.Y.2d 713, 726-727, 573\nN.E.2d 541, 553, 570 N.Y.S.2d 453, 464 (1991), vacated, 112 S.Ct. 859 (1991).\nIf the only purpose of section 632-a was to compensate victims, however, petitioners\'\ncontention that the State\'s needs could be met by other, less burdensome means would be\nmore persuasive. Manifestly, article 22 and the general civil procedures address that need.\nSection 632-a provides not only a method for victims to obtain compensation, however, it also\nmeets other compelling governmental interests. First, it preserves the victim\'s equitable right\nto assets earned by a criminal as a result of the victimization. Compare Executive Law 631\n147\n\n\x0cwith 632-a. If there is no victim a necessary requirement for implementation of the statute is\nlacking, section 632-a does not apply and the criminal may discuss the crime without\nrestraint. E.g., compare Halmi v. Crime Victims Bd., N.Y. L.J., June 5, 1986, at 12 (N.Y. Sup.\nCt. June 4 1986), aff\'d, 128 A.D.2d 411 (prostitution is victimless crime) and St. Martins\nPress v. Zweibel, N.Y. L.J., Feb. 26, 1990, at 25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 24, 1990) (securities\nfraud based on leaking market information) with Simon & Schuster v. Fischetti, 916 F.2d 777\n(2d. Cir. 1991) and this case. But if there are victims and the criminal profits from\nreenactment or depiction of the crime, then the victims who have been injured by the criminal\nact, and the State, which has been called upon to render aid to those victims, should have the\nfirst claim to that money. They should be compensated before the criminal.\nAdapted from McCann v. Scaduto, 71 N.Y.2d 164, 182-183, 519 N.E.2d 309, 326, 524\nN.Y.S.2d 398, 416-417 (1987).\nWe reject the above arguments for the Secretary\'s exercise of an interim rate authority\nessentially for the same reasons that the court below rejected them. The Natural Gas Act, like\nmost modern ratemaking statutes, provides for a plenary ratemaking authority and vests in it\none body, there, the Federal Power Commission. As the Supreme Court held in Tennessee\nGas, an interim authority follows naturally from a plenary authority under the usual\n"necessary and proper" clause. What the government has failed to understand in urging upon\nus a similar argument in the present case is that such a holding necessarily depends upon the\nexistence of a plenary authority. In this case the rate developer has none; the scheme set out in\nsection 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 divides rate authority and vests it in two separate\nbranches of the government. The government\'s suggested approach assumes the validity of\ntheir conclusion even before the process of deduction has begun. But see Montana Power Co.\nv. Edwards, 531 F. Supp. 8 (D. Or. 1981) (adopting the approach attacked in this paragraph);\nPacific Power & Light Co. v. Duncan, 499 F. Supp. 672 (D. Or. 1980) (same); cf. Colorado\nRiver Energy Distribs. Ass\'n v. Lewis, 516 F. Supp. 926 (D.D.C. 1981) (correctly relying on\nTennessee Gas in hydroelectric ratemaking case under section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project\nAct of 1939, 43 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 485h(c) (1976), which gives the Secretary plenary authority). To\nresolve this case, we are forced to examine the substantive provisions of the Flood Control\nand DOE Acts, which we have done in the first three Parts of this opinion.\nAdapted from Respondent\'s Brief, United States v. Navajo Nation, No. 01-1375 (Oct.\n9, 2002)\nA. The Ideal of Tribal Self-Determination Does Not Dilute Trust Duties.\nIn the space of 20 pages, the Government\'s brief transforms the modern federal policy\nfavoring tribal self-determination from a supposed "focus" of IMLA to its "central aim." See\nPet. Br. 18, 19, 20, 38. Contra Kerr-McGee, 471 U.S. at 200. It repeatedly offers, never with\nany citation to authority, that the historic requirement of federal approval of Indian land\ntransactions is merely to give "backstop protection" to the tribes, whatever that might be. E.g.,\nPet. Br. 18, 43, 49. Contra Tuscarora, 362 U.S. at 118-19; Sunderland, 266 U.S. at 234. The\nGovernment unsuccessfully asserted in Mitchell II that the federal policy favoring Indian selfdetermination compromises trust duties. See Brief for the United States, No. 81-1748, at 35.\nThat argument has gained no force in the intervening 20 years.\n148\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 7-000. CROSS REFERENCE TABLES\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\xc2\xa7 7-100. Introduction\nThe principles and practices described in this Introduction to Basic Legal Citation are\nelaborated in far greater specificity (and with differences noted throughout this work) in two\ncitation references widely used in U.S. law schools.\nThis concluding segment contains a set of point by point cross-references to those books.\nTables set out in subsequent sections have been designed to enable users of this introduction\nto find the relevant treatment of each citation principle or category of material covered here in\neither The Bluebook (\xc2\xa7 7-300) or the ALWD Citation Manual (\xc2\xa7 7-400), whichever they are\nworking from.\nIn addition, because the current Bluebook is but the latest in a long succession of editions, it\nbeing the nineteenth, this segment offers an inventory of the more recent changes of\nsignificance. See \xc2\xa7 7-200.\nA concluding table (\xc2\xa7 7-500) furnishes state by state access to citation examples of the three\nmost frequently cited categories of primary law material \xe2\x80\x93 cases, statutes, and regulations \xe2\x80\x93\nnoting those points on which the norms and practice of each state diverge from the\nprescriptions of the "national" guides.\n\n149\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 7-200. Significant Changes in The Bluebook:\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n19th edition\nThe nineteenth edition made even fewer significant changes than its immediate predecessor.\nThe "Bluepages" \xe2\x80\x93 the sole title now given the introductory material introduced in the\neighteenth \xe2\x80\x93 and accompanying tables expanded from forty-three pages to fifty-one.\nExpansion and elaboration occurred throughout, most notably in the concluding set of tables\n(which comprise over half the volume). They grew by nearly forty percent. The bulk of that\ngrowth was concentrated in T2\'s coverage of foreign jurisdictions, from the Argentine\nRepublic to the Republic of Zambia.\nElectronic Media\nFinally acknowledging that the Internet has for many types of legal material supplanted print\ndistribution, The Bluebook now sanctions citation to electronic documents obtained from\nreliable online sources "as if they were the original print," permitting the omission of URL\ninformation in such cases.\n18th edition\nThe Bluebook\'s eighteenth edition made few changes of substance. The book\'s format was\nrevised; numerous rules were clarified; the treatment of foreign and international materials\nwas expanded; and the tables were both added to and extended. The Bluebook continues to\ndeal predominantly with the citation needs and norms of law journal writing. However, the\nmaterial previously relegated to nineteen pages of "practitioner notes" has, in this latest\nedition, been expanded into a first section entitled "An Introduction to Basic Legal Citation"\n(this work\'s title since its release in 1993). That section is accompanied by a new set of tables\nfurnishing references to local (jurisdiction-specific) citation rules and style guides,\ninformation that has been included in the ALWD Citation Manual from the start.\nElectronic Media\nThe Bluebook\'s coverage of Internet-based material significantly expanded and rationalized.\nWhile the seventeenth edition divided Internet citations into three categories, the eighteenth\nreduced the number to two \xe2\x80\x93 direct citations of material accessible only online and parallel\ncitations furnished to facilitate access to material distributed in print, but not widely available\nin that form.\n17th edition\nIntroductory Signals\nThe introductory signal rule changes made by the sixteenth edition were reversed in the\nseventeenth. Rule 1.2 now provides as it did prior to 1996. "E.g." is back as a separate signal\nand "contra" is restored.\n150\n\n\x0cCase Name Abbreviations\nRule 10.2.2 no longer spares the first or only word of a party name from abbreviation if it is in\nthe table of abbreviated words (T.6). In addition, that table has been expanded.\nRecognition of Vendor- and Medium-Neutral Case Citations\nRule 10.3.3 acknowledges the spreading phenomenon of court adopted vendor- and mediumneutral citation systems, requires the use of such a system where the jurisdiction has adopted\none. 10.3.1(b) requires the addition of a parallel citation to a regional reporter even though the\nrule establishing a vendor, medium-neutral citation system may not.\nListing of Authors\nPreviously the Bluebook insisted on use of "et al." rather than a full listing of author names\nwhen a book had more than two authors. The revised Rule 15.1.1 loosens up to permit a full\nlist when "the names of the authors are relevant."\nRecognition of Electronic Media\nElectronic and other nonprint resources (commercial online systems, public and commercial\ninternet sites, CD-ROM, Microform and more) have been broken out of Rule 17 (which now\ndeals only with unpublished and forthcoming sources) and placed in a new Rule 18. (The\nformer Rules 18, 19, and 20 have been renumbered accordingly.)\n\n151\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 7-300. Cross Reference Table: The Bluebook\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nReferences to treatment of this work\'s topics in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation\n(Columbia Law Review Ass\'n et al. eds., 19th ed. 2010)\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 1-000. What and Why?\no The Bluebook: pp.1-2, B1\n\xc2\xa7 2-110. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Core Elements\no The Bluebook: B10, 18.2 The Internet, 18.3 Commercial Electronic Databases,\n18.4 CD-ROM and Other Electronic Storage Media\n\xc2\xa7 2-210. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no The Bluebook: B4, Rule 10, 10.2 Case Names, 10.3 Reporters and Other\nSources, 10.4 Court and Jurisdiction, 10.5 Date or Year, T1 United States\nJurisdictions, T6 Case Names and Institutional Authors in Citations, T7 Court\nNames, T10 Geographical Terms\n\xc2\xa7 2-220. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no The Bluebook: Rule 10, 10.8 Special Citation Forms\n\xc2\xa7 2-230. Medium-Neutral Case Citations\no The Bluebook: Rule 10, 10.3.3 Public Domain Format\n\xc2\xa7 2-240. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items\no The Bluebook: Rule 10, 10.6 Parenthetical Information Regarding Cases, 10.7\nPrior and Subsequent History, T8 Explanatory Phrases\n\xc2\xa7 2-310. Constitution Citations\no The Bluebook: B6, Rule 11, T1 United States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-320. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no The Bluebook: B5, Rule 12, 12.2 Choosing the Proper Citation Form, 12.3\nCurrent Official and Unofficial Codes, T1 United States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-340. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no The Bluebook: Rule 12, 12.4 Session Laws, 12.9 Special Citation Forms, T1\nUnited States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-350. Local Ordinance Citations\no The Bluebook: Rule 12, 12.9.2 Ordinances\n\xc2\xa7 2-360. Treaty Citations\no The Bluebook: Rule 21, 21.4 Treaties and Other International Agreements\n\xc2\xa7 2-410. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no The Bluebook: B5, Rule 14, 14.2 Rules, Regulations, and Other Publications,\nT1 United States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-420. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no The Bluebook: Rule 14, 14.2 Rules, Regulations, and Other Publications, T1\nUnited States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-450. Agency Adjudication Citations\no The Bluebook: Rule 14, 14.3 Administrative Adjudications and Arbitrations,\nT1 United States Jurisdictions\n\n152\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-470. Agency Report Citations\no The Bluebook: Rule 14, 14.2 Rules, Regulations, and Other Publications, T1\nUnited States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-480. Executive Orders and Proclamations\no The Bluebook: Rule 14, 14.2 Rules, Regulations, and Other Publications, T1\nUnited States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-490. Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions\no The Bluebook: Rule 14, 14.2 Rules, Regulations, and Other Publications, T1\nUnited States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-500. How to Cite Arbitrations\no The Bluebook: Rule 14, 14.3 Administrative Adjudications and Arbitrations,\nT1 United States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 2-600. How to Cite Court Rules\no The Bluebook: Rule 12, 12.9.3 Rules of Evidence and Procedure\n\xc2\xa7 2-710. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no The Bluebook: B8, Rule 15, 15.1 Author, 15.2 Editor or Translator, 15.3 Title,\n15.4 Edition, Publisher, and Date\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(1). Works by Institutional Authors\no The Bluebook: Rule 15, 15.1(c) Institutional authors\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(2). Services\no The Bluebook: Rule 19, 19.1 Citation Form for Services, T15 Services\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(3). Restatements\no The Bluebook: Rule 12, 12.9.5 Model Codes, Restatements, Standards, and\nSentencing Guidelines\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(4). Annotations\no The Bluebook: Rule 16, 16.7.6 Annotations\n\xc2\xa7 2-810. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no The Bluebook: B9, Rule 16, 16.2 Author, 16.3 Title, 16.4 Consecutively\nPaginated Journals, 16.5 Nonconsecutively Paginated Journals and Magazines,\nT13 Periodicals\n\xc2\xa7 2-820. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no The Bluebook: Rule 16, 16.2 Author, 16.3 Title, 16.4 Consecutively Paginated\nJournals, 16.5 Nonconsecutively Paginated Journals and Magazines, T13\nPeriodicals\n\xc2\xa7 2-900. Documents from Earlier Stages of a Case\no The Bluebook: B7, BT1 Court Documents\n\xc2\xa7 4-100. Words Abbreviated in Case Names\no The Bluebook: Rule 10, 10.2.1 General Rules for Case Names, 10.2.2\nAdditional Rules for Case Names in Citations, T6 Case Names and\nInstitutional Authors in Citations, T10 Geographical Terms\n\xc2\xa7 4-200. Words Used in Case Histories\no The Bluebook: T8 Explanatory Phrases\n\n153\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-300. Words Omitted in Case Names\no The Bluebook: Rule 10, 10.2.1 General Rules for Case Names, 10.2.2\nAdditional Rules for Case Names in Citations, T6 Case Names and\nInstitutional Authors in Citations\n\xc2\xa7 4-400. Reporters and Courts\no The Bluebook: T1 United States Jurisdictions\n\xc2\xa7 4-500. Territorial Abbreviations\no The Bluebook: T10 Geographic Terms\n\xc2\xa7 4-600. Months\no The Bluebook: T12 Months\n\xc2\xa7 4-700. Frequently Cited Journals\no The Bluebook: T13 Periodicals\n\xc2\xa7 4-810. Spacing between Abbreviated Words\no The Bluebook: Rule 6, 6.1(a) Spacing\n\xc2\xa7 4-820. Periods in Abbreviations\no The Bluebook: Rule 6, 6.1(b) Periods\n\xc2\xa7 5-000. Underlining and Italics\no The Bluebook: B1\n\xc2\xa7 6-100. Quoting\no The Bluebook: B12, Rule 5, 5.1 Formatting of Quotations, 5.2 Alterations &\nQuotations Within Quotations, 5.3 Omissions\n\xc2\xa7 6-200. Citations and Related Text\no The Bluebook: B2\n\xc2\xa7 6-300. Signals\no The Bluebook: B3, Rule 1, 1.2 Introductory Signals\n\xc2\xa7 6-400. Order\no The Bluebook: B3.5, Rule 1, 1.3 Order of Signals, 1.4 Order of Authorities\nWithin Each Signal\n\xc2\xa7 6-500. Short Forms\no The Bluebook: B4.2\n\n154\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 7-400. Cross Reference Table: ALWD Citation Manual\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nReferences to the treatment of this work\'s topics in ALWD Citation Manual (4th ed. 2010)\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 1-000. What and Why?\no ALWD Citation Manual: pp. 3-8\n\xc2\xa7 2-110. Electronic Sources \xe2\x80\x93 Core Elements\no ALWD Citation Manual: 38.0 General Information about Online and\nElectronic Citation Formats, 39.0 Westlaw and LexisNexis, 40.0 World Wide\nWeb Sites, 41.0 Electronic Mail and Messages, 42.0 CD-ROMs and E-Readers\n\xc2\xa7 2-210. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no ALWD Citation Manual: 12.0 Cases\n\xc2\xa7 2-220. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no ALWD Citation Manual: 12.12 Cases Published Only on LexisNexis or\nWestlaw, 12.13 Cases Not Yet Reported, 12.14 Table Cases and Federal\nAppendix Cases, 12.15 Cases on the Internet, 12.17 Cases Published Only in a\nLooseleaf Service\n\xc2\xa7 2-230. Medium-Neutral Case Citations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 12.6 Neutral Citations\n\xc2\xa7 2-240. Case Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Conditional Items\no ALWD Citation Manual: 12.8 Subsequent History, 12.10 Additional Rules\nConcerning Subsequent and Prior History, 12.11 Parenthetical Information\n\xc2\xa7 2-250. Citing Unpublished Cases\no ALWD Citation Manual: Sidebar 12.7 Court Rules Prohibiting or Limiting\nCitation of Unreported Cases in Briefs\n\xc2\xa7 2-310. Constitution Citations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 13.0 Constitutions\n\xc2\xa7 2-320. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no ALWD Citation Manual: 14.0 Statutory Codes, Session Laws, and Slip Laws\n\xc2\xa7 2-340. Statute Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no ALWD Citation Manual: 14.0 Statutory Codes, Session Laws, and Slip Laws\n\xc2\xa7 2-350. Local Ordinance Citations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 18.0 Local Ordinances\n\xc2\xa7 2-360. Treaty Citations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 21.0 Treaties and Conventions to Which the United\nStates Is a Party, International Sources, and Foreign Sources\n\xc2\xa7 2-410. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no ALWD Citation Manual: 19.0 Federal Administrative and Executive Materials,\n20.0 State Administrative and Executive Materials\n\xc2\xa7 2-420. Regulation Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no ALWD Citation Manual: 19.0 Federal Administrative and Executive Materials,\n20.0 State Administrative and Executive Materials\n\xc2\xa7 2-450. Agency Adjudication Citations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 19.5 Full Citation Format for Agency Decisions, 20.5\nFull Citation Format for State Agency Decisions\n155\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 2-470. Agency Report Citations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 19.14 Other Administrative and Executive Materials,\n20.10 Other State Administrative and Executive Materials\n\xc2\xa7 2-480. Executive Orders and Proclamations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 19.9 Full Citation Format for Executive Orders,\nProclamations, Determinations, and Reorganization Plans, 20.9 State\nExecutive Materials\n\xc2\xa7 2-490. Attorney General and Other Advisory Opinions\no ALWD Citation Manual: 19.7 Full Citation Format for Attorney General\nOpinions and Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel Opinions, 20.7 Full\nCitation Format for State Attorney General Opinions\n\xc2\xa7 2-500. How to Cite Arbitrations\no ALWD Citation Manual: [Not covered]\n\xc2\xa7 2-600. How to Cite Court Rules\no ALWD Citation Manual: 17.0 Court Rules, Ethics Rules and Opinions, and\nJury Instructions\n\xc2\xa7 2-710. Book Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no ALWD Citation Manual: 22.0 Books, Treatises, and Other Nonperiodic\nMaterials\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(1). Works by Institutional Authors\no ALWD Citation Manual: 22.0 Books, Treatises, and Other Nonperiodic\nMaterials, 25.0 Legal Dictionaries, 26.0 Legal Encyclopedias\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(2). Services\no ALWD Citation Manual: 28.0 Looseleaf Services and Reporters\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(3). Restatements\no ALWD Citation Manual: 27.0 Restatements, Model Codes, Uniform Laws, and\nSentencing Guidelines\n\xc2\xa7 2-720(4). Annotations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 24.0 A.L.R. Annotations\n\xc2\xa7 2-810. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Most Common Form\no ALWD Citation Manual: 23.0 Legal and Other Periodicals\n\xc2\xa7 2-820. Journal Article Citations \xe2\x80\x93 Variants and Special Cases\no ALWD Citation Manual: 23.0 Legal and Other Periodicals\n\xc2\xa7 2-900. Documents from Earlier Stages of a Case\no ALWD Citation Manual: 29.0 Practitioner and Court Documents, Transcripts,\nand Appellate Records\n\xc2\xa7 4-100. Words Abbreviated in Case Names\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.0 Abbreviations, 12.2 Case Name, App. 3 General\nAbbreviations\n\xc2\xa7 4-200. Words Used in Case Histories\no ALWD Citation Manual: 12.8 Subsequent History\n\xc2\xa7 4-300. Words Omitted in Case Names\no ALWD Citation Manual: 12.2 Case Name\n\xc2\xa7 4-400. Reporters and Courts\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.0 Abbreviations, 12.4 Reporter Abbreviation, 12.6\nCourt Abbreviation, App. 4 Court Abbreviations\n156\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\xc2\xa7 4-500. Territorial Abbreviations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.0 Abbreviations, App. 3 General Abbreviations\n\xc2\xa7 4-600. Months\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.0 Abbreviations, App. 3 General Abbreviations\n\xc2\xa7 4-700. Frequently Cited Journals\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.0 Abbreviations, App. 5 Abbreviations for Legal\nPeriodicals\n\xc2\xa7 4-810. Spacing between Abbreviated Words\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.2 Spacing for Abbreviations\n\xc2\xa7 4-820. Periods in Abbreviations\no ALWD Citation Manual: 2.0 Abbreviations, App. 3 General Abbreviations\n\xc2\xa7 5-000. Underlining and Italics\no ALWD Citation Manual: 1.0 Typeface for Citations\n\xc2\xa7 6-100. Quoting\no ALWD Citation Manual: 47.0 Quotations, 48.0 Altering Quoted Material, 49.0\nOmissions within Quoted Material\n\xc2\xa7 6-200. Citations and Related Text\no ALWD Citation Manual: 43.0 Citation Placement and Use\n\xc2\xa7 6-300. Signals\no ALWD Citation Manual: 44.0 Signals\n\xc2\xa7 6-400. Order\no ALWD Citation Manual: 45.0 Order of Cited Authorities\n\xc2\xa7 6-500. Short Forms\no ALWD Citation Manual: 11.0 Introduction to Full and Short Citation Formats\n\n157\n\n\x0c\xc2\xa7 7-500. Table of State-Specific Citation Norms and Practices\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nAla. | Alaska | Ariz. | Ark. | Cal. | Colo. | Conn. | Del. | D.C. | Fla. | Ga. | Haw.\nIdaho | Ill. | Ind. | Iowa | Kan. | Ky. | La. | Me. | Md. | Mass. | Mich. | Minn.\nMiss. | Mo. | Mont. | Neb. | Nev. | N.H. | N.J. | N.M. | N.Y. | N.C. | N.D. | Ohio\nOkla. | Or. | Pa. | R.I. | S.C. | S.D. | Tenn. | Tex. | Utah | Vt. | Va. | Wash.\nW. Va. | Wis. | Wyo.\n\nThe following table provides links to the citation forms for cases, statutes, and regulations in\nall fifty states and the District of Columbia. For each it also provides a sample of in-state\ncitation practice drawing upon a decision of the state\'s highest court and notes any explicit\ncitation rules governing briefs and memoranda submitted to that court.\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nAlabama [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nAlaska [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nArizona [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nArkansas [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nCalifornia [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nColorado [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nConnecticut [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nDelaware [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nDistrict of Columbia [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nFlorida [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nGeorgia [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nHawaii [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nIdaho [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nIllinois [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nIndiana [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nIowa [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nKansas [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nKentucky [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nLouisiana [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMaine [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMaryland [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMassachusetts [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMichigan [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMinnesota [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMississippi [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMissouri [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nMontana [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNebraska [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNevada [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNew Hampshire [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNew Jersey [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNew Mexico [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNew York [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\n158\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nNorth Carolina [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nNorth Dakota [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nOhio [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nOklahoma [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nOregon [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nPennsylvania [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nRhode Island [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nSouth Carolina [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nSouth Dakota [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nTennessee [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nTexas [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nUtah [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nVermont [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nVirginia [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nWashington [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nWest Virginia [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nWisconsin [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\nWyoming [Cases] [Statutes] [Regulations] [Examples and Rules]\n\nAlabama: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from White-Spunner Constr., Inc. v. Constr. Completion Co., LLC,\n103 So. 3d 781 (Ala. 2012)\n....\nAs required by \xc2\xa7 39-1-1(a), Ala. Code 1975, White-Spunner subsequently obtained two\npayment bonds from Hartford, one of which would compensate Auburn in the event WhiteSpunner failed to perform under the contract, the other of which would be used to compensate\nsubcontractors and suppliers in the event White-Spunner failed to do so in a timely fashion.\n....\nWe begin our examination of the labor-broker issue by looking to \xc2\xa7 34-8-1 et seq., Ala. Code\n1975, the chapter of the Alabama Code governing the licensing of contractors. This Court\nsuccinctly described its approach when interpreting statutes in DeKalb County LP Gas Co. v.\nSuburban Gas, Inc., 729 So. 2d 270, 275-76 (Ala. 1998). . . .\nImportantly, White-Spunner and Hartford emphasize, it is undisputed that Buena Vista\nemployees did not work simply as consultants, equipment installers, or performers of menial\nlabor. Rather, framing is specifically recognized as a construction activity by the Licensing\nBoard for General Contractors. See Ala. Administrative Code (Licensing Board for General\nContractors), Regulation 230-X-1-.27.\n\n159\n\n\x0c....\nCCC nevertheless argues that Buena Vista did not engage in contracting because, it argues,\nthe employees supplied by Buena Vista effectively became CCC employees and employees of\na licensed contractor are not required to be licensed themselves. Cooper v. Johnston, 283 Ala.\n565, 569, 219 So. 2d 392, 395 (1969).\n....\nAla. R. App. P. 28, http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules/ap28.pdf.\n(a) Brief of the Appellant/Petitioner.\nThe brief of the appellant or the petitioner, if a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and\nthe writ issues, shall comply with the form requirements of Rule 32. In addition, the brief of\nthe appellant or the petitioner shall contain under appropriate headings and in the order here\nindicated:\n....\n(10) Argument. An argument containing the contentions of the appellant/petitioner with\nrespect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the cases, statutes,\nother authorities, and parts of the record relied on. Citations of authority shall comply with the\nrules of citation in the latest edition of either The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation or\nALWD [Association of Legal Writing Directors] Citation Manual: A Professional System of\nCitation or shall otherwise comply with the style and form used in opinions of the Supreme\nCourt of Alabama. Citations shall reference the specific page number(s) that relate to the\nproposition for which the case is cited; . . . .\n\nAlaska: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State v. Dupier, 118 P.3d 1039 (Alaska 2005)\n....\nThe court of appeals summarized the charges against Dupier, Miller, and Twohy and the trial\ncourt proceedings as follows . . . State v. Dupier, 74 P.3d 922, 927-28 (Alaska App. 2003).\n....\nThe facts of this case are undisputed. Appellees John Dupier, Rodman E. Miller, and Philip J.\nTwohy each held Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) to fish in federal waters. In 2001, after\nfishing legally in federal waters, the fishers separately attempted to land their catches in\nAlaska without first obtaining state permits from the Commercial Fisheries Entry\nCommission (CFEC). None of the fishers attempted to fish in state waters. The State charged\n160\n\n\x0cthe fishers with possessing commercially taken fish in state waters without having a valid\ninterim-use permit, in violation of 20 AAC 05.110.\n....\nThe scope of the CFEC\'s authority to require permits within state waters turns on the language\nin the Alaska statutes governing interim-use permits, particularly AS 16.43.210(a), but also\nAS 16.43.140(a), AS 16.10.267(a)(1), and AS 16.05.675. Following the court of appeals\ndecision in this case, the legislature amended AS 16.43.210(a) so that it is now clear that the\nCFEC may issue interim-use permits for all Alaska fisheries, regardless of whether the fishery\nis subject to limited entry.\n....\nThe State argues that the 2004 amendment to AS 16.43.210(a) serves as a legislative\nclarification of pre-existing law. But in Hillman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., we\nreasoned: "While the legislature is fully empowered to declare present law by legislation, it is\nnot institutionally competent to issue opinions as to what a statute passed by an earlier\nlegislature meant." 758 P.2d 1248, 1252-53 (Alaska 1988). We have followed the Hillman\nrule in a number of subsequent cases. See State, Dep\'t of Revenue v. OSG Bulk Ships, Inc.,\n961 P.2d 399, 406 n.13 (Alaska 1998); Univ. of Alaska v. Tumeo, 933 P.2d 1147, 1156\n(Alaska 1997); Hickel v. Cowper, 874 P.2d 922, 925 n.7 (Alaska 1994); Flisock v. State, Div.\nof Ret. & Benefits, 818 P.2d 640, 645 (Alaska 1991); Wrangell Forest Prods. v. Alderson, 786\nP.2d 916, 918 n.1 (Alaska 1990). In this case, we decline to treat the 2004 amendment as a\nlegislative clarification of the pre-existing law.\n....\nAlaska R. App. P. 212(c), http://www.state.ak.us/courts/app.htm#212.\n(c) Substantive Requirements.\n(1) Brief of Appellant.\nThe brief of the appellant shall contain the following items under appropriate headings and in\nthe order here indicated:\n....\n(I) An argument section, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to\nthe issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and\nparts of the record relied on. The section may be preceded by a summary. Each major\ncontention shall be preceded by a heading indicating the subject matter. References to the\nrecord shall conform to the requirements of subparagraph (c)(8).\n....\n(8) References in Briefs to the Record.\n161\n\n\x0c(A) References in Cases in Which Excerpts are Prepared.\nReferences in the briefs to parts of the record reproduced in an excerpt shall be to the pages of\nthe excerpt at which those parts appear. The form for references to pages of the excerpt is\n[Exc. ____ ]. Briefs may reference parts of the record not reproduced in an excerpt. The form\nfor references to pages of the transcript is [Tr. ___ ] and to pages of the trial court file is\n[R.___ ]. The form for references to untranscribed portions of the electronic record is [CD (#),\nat Time 00:00:00 or Tape (#), at Log 00:00:00]\n....\nArizona: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Ry-Tan Constr., Inc. v. Wash. Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 6, 210 Ariz.\n419, 111 P.3d 1019 (2005)\n....\n\xc2\xb617 Section 27 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides that:\nManifestations of assent that are in themselves sufficient to conclude a contract will not be\nprevented from so operating by the fact that the parties also manifest an intention to prepare\nand adopt a written memorial thereof; but the circumstances may show that the agreements\nare preliminary negotiations.\nRestatement (Second) of Contracts \xc2\xa7 27 (1981). In support of the proposition that Arizona has\nadopted this section, the court refers to three recent decisions of the court of appeals. See\nTabler v. Indus. Comm\'n, 202 Ariz. 518, 521 \xc2\xb610, 47 P.3d 1156, 1159 (App. 2002); Johnson\nInt\'l, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 466, 470-71 \xc2\xb626, 967 P.2d 607, 611-12 (App. 1998);\nAROK Constr. Co. v. Indian Constr. Servs., 174 Ariz. 291, 297, 848 P.2d 870, 876 (App.\n1993).\n....\n\xc2\xb619 Ry-Tan also argues that the Arizona School District Procurement Code (the Code), Ariz.\nAdmin. Code (A.A.C.) R7-2-1001 to R7-2-1195, dramatically altered the landscape of school\nprocurement contracts and effectively displaced the common law rule of Covington. The state\nboard of education adopted the Code in 1987 pursuant to legislative authority. A.R.S. \xc2\xa7 15213.J (Supp. 2004). By its terms, the Code governs the "expenditure of public monies" for a\nschool district\'s procurement of "construction, materials and services." A.A.C. R7-2-1002.A.\n\xc2\xb620 The legislature, of course, can modify or abrogate the common law. To do so, however, it\nmust express its intent clearly and, "absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to\nabrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with every intendment in favor of consistency\nwith the common law." Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners\' Ass\'n, 207 Ariz. 418, 422 \xc2\xb612, 87\nP.3d 831, 835 (2004) (citation omitted).\n....\n162\n\n\x0cAriz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a), http://azrules.westgroup.com/.\nRule 13. Briefs\n(a) Brief of the Appellant.\nThe brief of the appellant shall concisely and clearly set forth under the appropriate headings\nand in the order here indicated:\n....\n(6) An argument which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues\npresented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the\nrecord relied on. The argument may include a summary. With respect to each contention\nraised on appeal, the proper standard of review on appeal shall be identified, with citations to\nrelevant authority, at the outset of the discussion of that contention. Citation of authorities\nshall be to the volume and page number of the official reports and also when possible to the\nunofficial reporters.\n\nNote: The same text appears in the rules of criminal procedure. Ariz. R. Crim. P.\n31.13(c)(1)(vi).\n\nArkansas: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Hinojosa v. State, 2009 Ark. 301\n....\nHinojosa filed a motion to suppress, contending that his statements and the physical evidence\nwere illegally seized as a result of an unlawful traffic stop. Sergeant Drown testified at the\nsuppression hearing that he stopped Hinojosa because the license plate frame on his truck\nobscured the identification of the plate\'s issuing state in violation of Ark. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 27-14716. Hinojosa asserted that the license plate cover did not violate Arkansas or Arizona law,\nand that Sergeant Drown\'s mistake of law rendered the traffic stop without probable cause\nand, therefore, illegal. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress in an order issued on\nNovember 5, 2007, and filed a letter containing its findings regarding the suppression motion\nthe same day. Quoting from Travis v. State, 331 Ark. 7, 959 S.W.2d 32 (1998) and Burris v.\nState, 330 Ark. 66, 73, 954 S.W.2d 209, 213 (1997), the trial court stated in the letter of\nfindings that the supreme court had previously held that a law enforcement officer\'s mistake\nof law does not negate probable cause; instead, "all that is required is that the officer had\nprobable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred." Hinojosa entered a conditional\nplea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling under Ark. R. Crim. P.\n24.3(b), and filed a timely notice of appeal.\n163\n\n\x0c....\nWhen this court grants a petition for review of a decision by the court of appeals, it reviews\nthe case as though it had originally been filed with this court. Brookshire v. Adcock, 2009\nArk. 207, 307 S.W.3d 22. In reviewing a circuit court\'s denial of a motion to suppress\nevidence, the appellate court conducts a de novo review based on the totality of the\ncircumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether\nthose facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to\ninferences drawn by the circuit court. Sims v. State, 356 Ark. 507, 157 S.W.3d 530 (2004).\nThis court will reverse the circuit court only if the ruling is clearly against the preponderance\nof the evidence. Id. Additionally, this court defers to the circuit court\'s superior position to\njudge the credibility of witnesses. Id.\n....\nArk. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a), 5-2(b), https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-andadministrative-orders/rules-of-the-supreme-court-and-court-of-appeals-of-thestate-of-arkansas.\nRule 4-2. Contents of briefs.\n(a) Contents.\nThe contents of the brief shall be in the following order:\n....\n(7) Argument. Arguments shall be presented under subheadings numbered to correspond to\nthe outline of points to be relied upon. For each issue, the applicable standard of review shall\nbe concisely stated at the beginning of the discussion of the issue. Citations of decisions of the\nArkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals must be from the official reports, and all\ncitations to both official and unofficial reports shall follow the format prescribed in Rule 5-2.\nAll citations of decisions of any other court must state the style of the case and cite the official\nreporter (including a regional reporter so designated by the issuing court) in which the case is\nfound. If the case is also reported by unofficial publishers, including an unofficial electronic\ndatabase, one of these should also be cited. Reference in the argument portion of the parties\xe2\x80\x99\nbriefs to material found in the abstract and addendum shall be followed by a reference to the\npage number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may be found. . . .\nRule 5-2. Opinions.\n....\n(b) Official Reports.\n(1) The Arkansas Reports and the Arkansas Appellate Reports shall contain the official report\nof decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals issued before February 14, 2009. The\nofficial report of decisions issued after that date shall be an electronic file created,\n164\n\n\x0cauthenticated, secured, and maintained by the Reporter of Decisions on the Arkansas\nJudiciary website.\n(2) After an opinion is announced, the Reporter shall post a preliminary report of the\nopinion\xe2\x80\x99s text on the website. This version is subject to editorial corrections. After the\nmandate has issued, and any needed editorial corrections are made, the Reporter shall replace\nthe preliminary report with an authenticated and secure electronic file containing the\npermanent and final report of the decision.\n(3) Every report of every decision shall contain an official citation created by the Reporter.\nThis citation shall include the year in which the decision was issued, the abbreviated name of\nthe issuing court, and the sequential appellate decision number for the year. For example, the\ncitation White v. Green, 2010 Ark. 171, reflects that the decision was issued in 2010, by the\nArkansas Supreme Court, and was the one hundred seventy-first opinion issued by that court\nthat calendar year. The citation Roe v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 745, reflects that this decision\nwas made by the Court of Appeals and was the seven hundred forty-fifth appellate opinion\nissued by that court in calendar year 2010.\n(c) Precedential Value. Every Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinion issued after July\n1, 2009, is precedent and may be relied upon and cited by any party in any proceeding.\nOpinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals issued before July 1, 2009, and not\ndesignated for publication shall not be cited, quoted, or referred to by any court or in any\nargument, brief, or other materials presented to any court (except in continuing or related\nlitigation upon an issue such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case).\n(d) Uniform citation.\n(1) Decisions included in the Arkansas Reports and Arkansas Appellate Reports shall be cited\nin all court papers by referring to the volume and page where the decision can be found and\nthe year of the decision. Parallel citations to the regional reporter, if available, are required.\nPinpoint citations to specific pages are strongly encouraged. For example:\nSmith v. Jones, 338 Ark. 556, 558, 999 S.W.2d 669, 670 (1999).\nDoe v. State, 74 Ark. App. 193, 198, 45 S.W.3d 860, 864 (2001).\n(2) Published decisions issued between February 14, 2009, and July 1, 2009, and all decisions\nissued after July 1, 2009, and available on the Arkansas Judiciary website shall be cited in all\ncourt papers by referring to the case name, the year of the decision, the abbreviated court\nname, and the appellate decision number. Arkansas Supreme Court shall be abbreviated\n\xe2\x80\x9cArk.\xe2\x80\x9d Arkansas Court of Appeals shall be abbreviated \xe2\x80\x9cArk. App.\xe2\x80\x9d Parentheticals containing\na date or court abbreviation shall not be used. Parallel citations to the regional reporter, if\navailable, are required. If the regional reporter citation is not available, then parallel citations\nto unofficial sources, including unofficial electronic databases, may be provided. Pinpoint\ncitations to specific pages are strongly encouraged. A pinpoint citation to the official version\nof a decision on the Arkansas Judiciary website shall refer to the page of the electronic file\nwhere the matter cited appears. For example:\n165\n\n\x0cSmith v. Hickman, 2009 Ark. 12, at 1, 273 S.W.3d 340, 343.\nDoe v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 318, at 7, 2009 WL 240613, at *8.\nWhite v. Green, 2010 Ark. 171, at 3, 2010 WL 3109899, at *2.\nRoe v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 745, at 6, 279 S.W.3d 495, 497.\n(3) When an unpublished decision may be cited in continuing or related litigation pursuant to\nsubdivision (c), the opinion\xe2\x80\x99s date determines the citation form. Opinions issued before\nFebruary 14, 2009, shall be cited by referring to the case name, the appellate docket number,\nthe abbreviated name of the issuing court and the complete date of the opinion in the first\nparenthetical, and including \xe2\x80\x9cunpublished\xe2\x80\x9d in a second parenthetical. Opinions issued after\nFebruary 14, 2009, and before July 1, 2009, shall be cited by referring to the case name, the\nyear of the decision, the abbreviated court name, the appellate decision number, and including\n\xe2\x80\x9cunpublished\xe2\x80\x9d in a parenthetical. Parallel citations to unofficial sources, including unofficial\nelectronic databases, may be provided. For example:\nHolt v. Newbern, No. CA07-345, slip op. at 4, 2008 WL 30117, at *2 (Ark. App. Apr. 16,\n2008) (unpublished).\nByrd v. Battle, 2009 Ark. App. 114, at 8, 2009 WL 47129, at *6 (unpublished).\n\nCalifornia: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Zuckerman v. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam\'rs, 29 Cal. 4th 32, 53\nP.3d 119, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 (2002)\n....\nUnder California law, the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) may discipline any\nchiropractor who engages in professional misconduct. A chiropractor accused of misconduct\nis entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge, whose proposed decision is\nreviewed by the Board. A chiropractor found to have committed misconduct may be ordered\nto pay the "reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution of the case," including attorney\nfees, that the Board incurred "up to the date of the hearing . . . ." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, \xc2\xa7\n317.5.)\n....\nHearings are ordinarily held before an administrative law judge employed by the Office of\nAdministrative Hearings. ( Gov. Code, \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 11502, 11517.) After a hearing, the administrative\nlaw judge submits a proposed decision to the Board (id., \xc2\xa7 11517, subd. (c)), which may adopt\nit, reduce the proposed penalty, or, as occurred in this case, reject the proposed decision and\ndecide the case itself. If the Board chooses the latter option, it may base its decision on the\nrecord of the hearing before the administrative law judge (as occurred here) or it may take\n166\n\n\x0cnew evidence. (Ibid.) The Board\'s decisions are subject to judicial review by administrative\nmandamus. ( Code Civ. Proc., \xc2\xa7 1094.5.)\n....\nZuckerman argues that regulation 317.5 is facially unconstitutional. He claims it violates his\ndue process rights by discouraging chiropractors whom the Board has accused of misconduct\nfrom requesting a hearing on the charges. We evaluate the merits of a facial challenge by\nconsidering [*39] "only the text of the measure itself, not its application to the particular\ncircumstances of an individual." ( Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 1069, 1084, [40\nCal. Rptr. 2d 402, 892 P.2d 1145].) A plaintiff challenging the facial validity of a statute\n"cannot prevail by suggesting that in some future hypothetical situation constitutional\nproblems may possibly arise as to the particular application of the statute." ( Pacific Legal\nFoundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180, [172 Cal. Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215].)\n....\nZuckerman also argues that the Board\'s enabling legislation does not authorize regulation\n317.5, and that the regulation therefore exceeds the Board\'s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal\nsummarily rejected the claim, relying on Oranen v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners\n(1999) 77 Cal. App. 4th 258, 261-263 [90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 287], which held that regulation 317.5\nis authorized by sections 4 and 10 of the Act. We do not address this issue because it is not\nwithin the scope of our order granting the Board\'s petition for review.\n....\nCal. Ct. R. 1.200,\nhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=one&linkid=rule1_200.\nRule 1.200 Format of Citations\nCitations to cases and other authorities in all documents filed in the courts must be in the style\nestablished by either the California Style Manual or The Bluebook: A Uniform System of\nCitation, at the option of the party filing the document. The same style must be used\nconsistently throughout the document.\nCal. Ct. R. 3.1113,\nhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_1113.\n(c) Case citation format\nA case citation must include the official report volume and page number and year of decision.\nThe court must not require any other form of citation.\n\n167\n\n\x0cColorado: Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Colo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm\'n v. Grand Valley Citizens\'\nAlliance, 2012 CO 52, 279 P.3d 646\n\xc2\xb61 Grand Valley Citizens\xe2\x80\x99 Alliance, along with Cary Weldon, Ruth Weldon, Wesley Kent,\nMarcia Kent, and Western Colorado Congress (collectively, \xe2\x80\x9cGVC\xe2\x80\x9d) filled a complaint\nagainst the Colorado Oil and Gas Conversation Commission and others (the \xe2\x80\x9cCommission\xe2\x80\x9d)\nalleging that it was entitled to a hearing on an application for permit to drill (\xe2\x80\x9cAPD\xe2\x80\x9d) pursuant\nto section 34-60-108(7), C.R.S. (2011), of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (the \xe2\x80\x9cAct\xe2\x80\x9d) and\nsection 24-4-105, C.R.S. (2011), of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. The trial\ncourt dismissed the complaint opf the ground that GVC had no standing to request a hearing.\n\xc2\xb62 GVC appealed and the court of appeals reversed. . . .\n....\n\xc2\xb615 Here, the Commission promulgated a rule stating that any person seeking to drill must file\nan APD. 2 Colo. Code Regs. \xc2\xa7 404-1:303.a (as amended 2009). However, only the operator,\nsurface owner, or the relevant local government may request a hearing on an APD under the\nCommission\xe2\x80\x99s rule. 2 Colo. Code Regs. \xc2\xa7 404-1:503.b.7 (as amended 2009). GVC cannot\nseek a hearing under the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s rule because it is not the operator, surface owner, or\nrelevant local government.\n\xc2\xb616 This is not to say, however, that GVC cannot participate in the process and voice its\nconcerns. Under Rule 303.m.(1), the director \xe2\x80\x9cmay withhold approval of any [APD] \xe2\x80\xa6 based\non information supplied in a written complaint submitted by any party with standing under\nRule 522.a.(1).\xe2\x80\x9d 2 Colo. Code Regs. \xc2\xa7 404-1 (2009). Rule 522.a.(1) states, in part, that a\ncomplaint can be filed by \xe2\x80\x9cany other person who may be directly and adversely affected or\naggrieved as the result of [an] alleged violation.\xe2\x80\x9d 2 Colo. Code Regs. \xc2\xa7 404-1 (2009). Under\nthese rules, GVC\xe2\x80\x99s request to intervene was properly treated as a complaint.\n\xc2\xb617 In this case, the legislature granted the Commission broad authority under section 34-60106(1)(f) to regulate the permitting process. Here, the Commission has determined, pursuant\nto its rules, that only a limited number of parties, not including GVC may request a hearing on\nan APD. We see no grounds for disturbing that determination. See Colorado Ground Water\nComm\xe2\x80\x99n v. Eagle Peak Farms, 919 P.2d 212, 217 (Colo. 1996) (agency rules are \xe2\x80\x9cpresumed\nvalid\xe2\x80\x9d and any challenging party has \xe2\x80\x9ca heavy burden\xe2\x80\x9d to establish that the agency violated\nconstitutional or statutory law, exceeded its authority, or lacked a basis in the record).\n....\nColo. C.J. Directive 12-01,\nhttp://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Directives/CJD%201201.pdf.\n168\n\n\x0cPUBLIC DOMAIN CITATION FORMAT FOR COLORADO SUPREME COURT\nAND COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS CASES\nGiven the increasing amount of legal research being conducted via the internet and other\nelectronic resources and the desire to promote equal access to Colorado\xe2\x80\x99s system of justice,\nthis Chief Justice Directive establishes a public domain citation format that will support the\nuse of Colorado case law in both book and electronic formats.\nLegal practitioners and self-represented parties will be permitted\xe2\x80\x94but not required\xe2\x80\x94to use\nthe public domain citation format instead of citing to the Pacific Reporter. Irrespective of\nwhich citation format is used, a parallel citation to the other format is also not required.\nBeginning January 1, 2012, the Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Clerk of the\nColorado Court of Appeals shall assign to all opinions announced for publication a citation\nthat shall include:\n1\n\nThe calendar year in which the opinion is announced;\n\n2\nFollowed by the court designator \xe2\x80\x9cCO\xe2\x80\x9d for published opinions announced by the\nColorado Supreme Court, or followed by the court designator \xe2\x80\x9cCOA\xe2\x80\x9d for published\nopinions announced by the Court of Appeals; and\n3\nFollowed by a consecutive Arabic numeral, beginning in each new calendar year\nwith the number \xe2\x80\x9c1\xe2\x80\x9d; for example: \xe2\x80\x9c2012 CO 1\xe2\x80\x9d for the first published opinion announced\nby the Colorado Supreme Court in 2012, and \xe2\x80\x9c2012 COA 1\xe2\x80\x9d for the first published opinion\nannounced by the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2012.\nThis public domain citation shall appear on the title page of each published opinion\nannounced by the Supreme Court and by the Court of Appeals. All publishers of Colorado\nSupreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals materials are requested to include this public\ndomain citation within the heading of each Colorado opinion they publish on or after January\n1, 2012. In addition:\nNumbered paragraphs. Beginning with the first paragraph of text, each paragraph in every\npublished opinion shall be numbered consecutively beginning with a \xe2\x80\x9c\xc2\xb6\xe2\x80\x9d symbol followed by\nan Arabic numeral\xe2\x80\x94beginning with the number \xe2\x80\x9c1\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94flush with the left margin, opposite the\nfirst word of the paragraph. Paragraph numbers shall continue consecutively throughout the\ntext of the majority opinion and on through any concurrence or dissent. Footnotes and\nparagraphs within footnotes shall not be numbered, nor shall markers, captions, headings, or\nnumerated titles that merely divide sections of opinions. Block-indented, single-spaced\nportions of a paragraph shall not be numbered as a separate paragraph. All publishers of\nColorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals materials are requested to include\nthese paragraph numbers in each opinion they publish.\nUnpublished opinions. Opinions that are not designated for official publication pursuant to\nC.A.R. 35(f) shall not be assigned a public domain citation.\n\n169\n\n\x0cModification, revision, or other substantive amendment. In the case of opinions that are\nmodified, revised, or otherwise substantively amended by subsequent order of the Supreme\nCourt or of the Court of Appeals, the public domain citation of the modified, revised, or\namended opinion shall be the same as the original public domain citation but followed by the\nletter \xe2\x80\x9cM\xe2\x80\x9d; for example, \xe2\x80\x9c2012 CO 1M\xe2\x80\x9d in the case of a modified Colorado Supreme Court\nopinion, and \xe2\x80\x9c2012 COA 1M\xe2\x80\x9d in the case of a modified Colorado Court of Appeals opinion.\nIn the event an opinion is modified, revised, or otherwise substantively amended more than\nonce, the public domain citation of any additional modified, revised, or amended opinion shall\nbe the same as the original public domain citation but designated with the letter \xe2\x80\x9cM\xe2\x80\x9d followed\nby a hyphen and the appropriate Arabic numeral; for example: \xe2\x80\x9c2012 CO 1M-2\xe2\x80\x9d in the case of\na Colorado Supreme Court opinion modified a second time, and \xe2\x80\x9c2012 CO 1M-3\xe2\x80\x9d in the case\nof a Colorado Supreme Court opinion modified a third time, and so on.\nWithdrawn, vacated, and reissued opinions. In the case of opinions that are withdrawn or\nvacated by a subsequent order of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, the public\ndomain citation of the withdrawing or vacating order shall be the same as the original public\ndomain citation but followed by the letter \xe2\x80\x9cW\xe2\x80\x9d; for example, \xe2\x80\x9c2012 CO 1W\xe2\x80\x9d in the case of a\nwithdrawn or vacated Colorado Supreme Court opinion, and \xe2\x80\x9c2012 COA 1W\xe2\x80\x9d in the case of a\nwithdrawn or vacated Colorado Court of Appeals opinion. In addition, the withdrawn or\nvacated opinion shall be removed from the electronic database of opinions maintained by the\nSupreme Court, and all publishers of Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of\nAppeals materials are requested to remove withdrawn or vacated opinions from their\nelectronic databases. An opinion that is reissued in place of a withdrawn or vacated opinion\nshall be assigned the next consecutive number appropriate to the date on which the reissued\nopinion is announced.\nExamples of proper public domain citation format. The public domain citation format\napplies to published opinions announced by the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado\nCourt of Appeals on or after January 1, 2012. The following examples are not real cases and\nare used for illustrative purposes only:\nColorado Supreme Court:\nPrimary citation:\nSmith v. Jones, 2012 CO 22.\nPrimary citation with pinpoint citation:\nSmith v. Jones, 2012 CO 22, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 13\xe2\x80\x9314.\nSubsequent citation with pinpoint citation:\nSmith, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 13\xe2\x80\x9314.\nId. citation with pinpoint citation:\nId. at \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 13\xe2\x80\x9314.\n\n170\n\n\x0cColorado Court of Appeals:\nPrimary citation:\nJones v. Smith, 2012 COA 35.\nPrimary citation with pinpoint citation:\nJones v. Smith, 2012 COA 35, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 44\xe2\x80\x9345.\nSubsequent citation with pinpoint citation:\nJones, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb644\xe2\x80\x9345.\nId. citation with pinpoint citation:\nId. at \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb644\xe2\x80\x9345.\n\nConnecticut: Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Ruffin v. Dep\'t of Pub. Works, 50 Conn. Supp. 98, 914 A.2d 617\n(2006)\n....\nThe failure to place the plaintiff\'s name on the reemployment list for those laid off and to have\nhired her from it cannot be considered in excess of statutory authority because the plaintiff\nlost her job due to a disability as opposed to a lack of work. While the plaintiff\'s position was\nnot held for her while on her last medical leave of absence, it remained open and she could\nhave been placed in it if she was able to return to public works\' financial management unit.\nThe position was lost to public works only after the plaintiff\'s separation from state service. A\nlayoff is for "any cause other than disability, delinquency, incompetency, misconduct or\nneglect of duty . . . ." General Statutes \xc2\xa7 5-241(a); Regs., Conn. State Agencies \xc2\xa7 5-241-2. A\nlayoff is a separation from state service by reason of the state\'s economic situation as opposed\nto disability. Sullivan v. Morgan, 160 Conn. 176, 183, 276 A.2d 899 (1970). State employees\nwho have been laid off, unlike those state employees who are separated from service due to a\ndisability, are entitled to the placement of their names on the reemployment list for laid off\nemployees. General Statutes \xc2\xa7 5-241; Regs., Conn. State Agencies \xc2\xa7 5-241-2. The defendants,\nthen, acted in compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations.\n....\nThe plaintiff\'s construction of the State Personnel Act fails to read its provisions as a whole\nand is contrary to its terms. The defendants would have acted in excess of their statutory\nauthority only if they had put the plaintiff\'s name on the reemployment list for laid off\nemployees and rehired her from that list because that would have been in violation of the\nState Personnel Act. This is factually distinguishable from Cox v. Aiken, 86 Conn. App. 587,\n590, 862 A.2d 319 (2004), cert. granted on other grounds, 273 Conn. 916, 871 A.2d 370\n(2005), where the plaintiff alleged that the state acted in excess of statutory authority when it\nlaid off a state employee with less seniority than Cox in violation of \xc2\xa7 5-241.\n171\n\n\x0c....\nConn. R. App. P \xc2\xa7 67-11, www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf.\nSec. 67-11. Table of Authorities; Citation of Cases\n(a) In the table of authorities, citations to state cases shall be to the official reporter first, if\navailable, followed by the regional reporter. Citations to cases from jurisdictions having no\nofficial reporter shall identify the court rendering the decision. Citations to opinions of the\nUnited States Supreme Court shall be to the United States Reports, if therein; otherwise, such\ncitations shall be to the Supreme Court Reporter, the Lawyer\xe2\x80\x99s Edition, or United States Law\nWeek, in that order of preference.\n(b) In the argument portion of a brief, citations to Connecticut cases shall be to the official\nreporter only. Citations to other state cases may be to either the official reporter or the\nregional reporter. United States Supreme Court cases should be cited as they appear in the\ntable of authorities.\n(c) If a case is not available in print and is available on an electronic database, such as LEXIS.\nWestlaw, CaseBase or LOIS, the case shall be cited to that database. In the table of\nauthorities, citations to such cases shall include the case name; docket number; name of the\ndatabase and, if applicable, numeric identifiers unique to the database; court name; and full\ndate of the disposition of the case. Screen, page or paragraph numbers shall be preceded by an\nasterisk. In the argument portion of a brief, such cases shall be cited only by name and\ndatabase. If such a case is published in a print reporter after the filing of the party\'s brief, but\nprior to the case on appeal being orally argued or submitted for decision on the record and\nbriefs, the party who cited the unreported case shall, by letter, inform the chief clerk of the\nprint citation of that case.\n\nDelaware: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Del. Bd. of Nursing v. Gillespie, 41 A.3d 423 (Del. 2012)\n....\nAny physician, and any other person in the healing arts including any person licensed to\nrender services in medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, any intern, resident, nurse, school\nemployee, social worker, psychologist, medical examiner or any other person who knows or\nin good faith suspects child abuse or neglect shall make a report in accordance with \xc2\xa7 904 of\nthis title. In addition to and not in lieu of reporting to the Division of Family Services, any\nsuch person may also give oral or written notification of said knowledge or suspicion to any\npolice officer who is in the presence of such person for the purpose of rendering assistance to\nthe child in question or investigating the cause of the child\'s injuries or condition. Del.Code\nAnn. tit. 16, \xc2\xa7 903 (2003).\n\n172\n\n\x0cThis provision was amended in 2010, and now expressly provides that the duty to report\napplies to all persons. 77 Del. Laws ch. 320, \xc2\xa7 1 (2010).\nTitle 24, section 1922(a)(8) of the Delaware Code provides that the Board may impose\nsanctions when it finds a licensee guilty of any offense described therein, including\n"unprofessional conduct as shall be determined by the Board, or the willful neglect of a\npatient[.]" Del.Code Ann. tit. 24, \xc2\xa7 1922(a)(8) (2005). Board Rule 10.4.1 further provides that\n"[n]urses whose behavior fails to conform to legal standards and accepted standards of the\nnursing profession and who thus may adversely affect the health and welfare of the public\nmay be found guilty of unprofessional conduct." 24 Del. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 1900-10.4.1.\n....\n"The goal of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to legislative intent." LeVan\nv. Independence Mall, Inc., 940 A.2d 929, 932 (Del. 2007) (quoting Eliason v. Englehart, 733\nA.2d 944, 946 (Del. 1999)).\n....\nDel. Sup. Ct. R. 14(g),\nhttp://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=39368.\n14. Briefs and appendices; contents.\n....\n(g) Form of citations.\nThe following shall be the form of citations:\n(i) Reported Opinions. The style of citation shall be as set forth in THE BLUEBOOK: A\nUNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION, with no reference to State Reporter Systems or\nother parallel citations. For example:\nMelson v. Allman , 244 A.2d 85 (Del. 1968).\nPrince v. Bensinger , 244 A.2d 89 (Del. Ch. 1968).\nState v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co. , 244 A.2d 80 (Del. Super. Ct. 1968).\n(ii) Unreported Opinions. The style of citation shall be any of the\nthree alternatives set forth below:\nLEXIS Citation Form: Fox v. Fox , 1998 Del. LEXIS 179 (Del. Supr.).\nOR\nWestlaw Citation Form: Fox v. Fox , 1998 WL 280361 (Del. Supr.).\nOR\nDelaware Citation Form: Fox v. Fox , Del. Supr., No. 510, 1997,\nBerger, J. (May 14, 1998).\n\n173\n\n\x0c(iii) Other Authority. The style of citation to any other type of authority, including but not\nlimited to statutes, books, and articles, shall be as set forth in THE BLUEBOOK: A\nUNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION.\n\nD.C. : Court of Appeals citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Dorsey v. District of Columbia, 917 A.2d 639 (D.C. 2007)\n....\nD.C. Code \xc2\xa7 50-2303.03 (b) (2001 & 2006 Supp.) requires that "[a] duplicate of each notice\nof infraction shall be served on the person to whom it is issued" and that "[t]he original or a\nfacsimile thereof shall be filed with the Department [of Motor Vehicles]\xe2\x80\xa6." Pursuant to\nregulation, a notice of infraction may be issued from a hand-held electronic device. 18 DCMR\n\xc2\xa73000.7 (2006). 18 DCMR \xc2\xa7 3000.9 (2006), in turn, provides that "[u]ploading of the data\ncontained in hand-held electronic devices into the automatic ticket database shall be deemed\nthe filing of a facsimile with the Department . . . ." Mr. Dorsey complains that this regulation\nviolates the statute because the detailed printout produced by the data base is not an "exact\ncopy" of the notice of infraction.\n....\nMany of Mr. Dorsey\'s complaints are generalized, and we will not consider them because he\nhas not alleged injury in fact. See generally York Apartments Tenants Ass\'n v. District of\nColumbia Zoning Comm\'n, 856 A.2d 1079, 1084 (D.C. 2004) (discussing the requirements for\nstanding). The complaint does identify three parking tickets he received, and he does have\nstanding to complain about them. Yet, so far as the complaint alleges or we could discern\nfrom oral argument, Mr. Dorsey did not appear at a hearing to contest those tickets. Moreover,\nhe did not move to set aside the default judgments entered against him. He stated that he had\nconcluded from years of experience that it would be futile to move to vacate those judgments.\n....\nD.C. Code \xc2\xa7 1-301.42 (2001) provides that "[f]or any speech or debate made in the course of\ntheir legislative duties, the members of the Council shall not be questioned in any other\nplace." Patterned after the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, \xc2\xa7 6, cl. 1, this\nstatute was enacted in part to provide Council members with the same protection afforded to\nmembers of Congress "against civil actions and criminal prosecutions that threaten to delay\nand disrupt the legislative process." COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,\nCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND CRIMINAL LAW, REPORT ON BILL 1-34,\nTHE "LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE ACT OF 1975," at 2 (Dec. 4, 1975). See Gross v. Winter,\n277 U.S. App. D.C. 406, 414-15, 876 F.2d 165, 173-74 (1989) (discussing purpose of D.C.\nstatute, which previously was codified at D.C. Code \xc2\xa7 1-223 (1981)).\n....\n174\n\n\x0cD.C. Ct. App. R 28(g),\nhttp://www.dcappeals.gov/internet/documents/DCCA_Rules-1-01-11.pdf.\n(g) Citations.\nA published opinion or order of this court may be cited in any brief. Unpublished orders or\nopinions of this court may not be cited in any brief, except when relevant (1) under the\ndoctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; (2) in a criminal case or\nproceeding involving the same defendant; or (3) in a disciplinary case involving the same\nrespondent.\nD.C. Super. Ct. Civ. P.R. 12-I(e),\nhttp://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/Civil-Rules-Jan-2012.pdf.\n. . . . All citations to cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of\nColumbia Circuit shall include the volume number and page of both U.S. App. D.C. and the\nFederal Reporter.\n\nNote: The format of citations in the published opinions of the D.C. Court of Appeals is the\nsubject of a detailed guide, Citation and Style Guide (2009),\nhttp://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/RevisedCitationGuide2009.pdf.\n\nFlorida: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from North Lauderdale v. SMM Properties, Inc., 825 So. 2d 343 (Fla.\n2002)\n....\nPursuant to Florida law, "first response medical aid" is considered one of the routine duties of\na firefighter, and firefighters are required to take 40 hours of training of first response medical\naid. See \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 401.435(1), 633.35(2), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. Admin. Code R. 4A-37.055(21).\nFirst response medical aid is routinely provided by policemen, firefighters, lifeguards, etc., as\nnecessary "on-scene patient care before emergency medical technicians or paramedics arrive."\n\xc2\xa7 401.435(1), Fla. Stat. The duties of the medical response teams in Lake County seem to fit\nprecisely within the parameters of routine "first response medical aid" because the teams there\nhad the duty to "stabilize patients and provide them with initial medical care." 695 So. 2d\n667-69; see also Water Oak Management Corp. v. Lake County, 673 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th\nDCA 1996). There was no mention of the provision of comprehensive emergency medical\ntransportation services as part of the integrated fire protection service discussed in Lake\nCounty.\n175\n\n\x0c....\nHaving concluded that the facts of the instant case differ from Lake County, we must\ndetermine whether the special assessment at issue here nonetheless meets the first prong of\nthe special assessment test; in other words, whether the special assessment for emergency\nmedical services provides a special benefit to the assessed property. We traditionally defer to\nthe legislative body\'s determination of special benefits. See City of Boca Raton v. State, 595\nSo. 2d 25, 30 (Fla. 1992); South Trail Fire Control Dist. v. State, 273 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla.\n1973) (determination of special benefits is one of fact for legislative body and apportionment\nof the assessments is a legislative function). "The standard is the same for both prongs; that is,\nthe legislative determination as to the existence of special benefits and as to the\napportionment of costs of those benefits should be upheld unless the determination is\narbitrary." Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d 180, 184 (Fla. 1995).\n....\nFla. R. App. P. 9.800, http://www.4dca.org/applellate rules.pdf#page=74.\nRULE 9.800. UNIFORM CITATION SYSTEM\nThis rule applies to all legal documents, including court opinions. Except for citations to case\nreporters, all citation forms should be spelled out in full if used as an integral part of a\nsentence either in the text or in footnotes. Abbreviated forms as shown in this rule should be\nused if the citation is intended to stand alone either in the text or in footnotes.\n(a) Florida Supreme Court.\n(1) 1846-1886: Livingston v. L\'Engle, 22 Fla. 427 (1886).\n(2) Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992).\n(3) For recent opinions not yet published in the Southern Reporter, cite to Florida Law\nWeekly:\nTraylor v. State, 17 Fla. L. Weekly S42 (Fla. Jan. 16, 1992).\nIf not therein, cite to the slip opinion:\nTraylor v. State, No. 70,051 (Fla. Jan. 16, 1992).\n(b) Florida District Courts of Appeal.\n(1) Sotolongo v. State, 530 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Buncayo v. Dribin, 533 So.2d\n935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).\n(2) For recent opinions not yet published in Southern Reporter, cite to Florida Law Weekly:\nMyers v. State, 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1507 (Fla. 4th DCA June 5, 1991).\nIf not therein, cite to the slip opinion: Myers v. State, No. 90-1092 (Fla. 4th DCA June 5,\n1991).\n(c) Florida Circuit Courts and County Courts.\n(1) Whidden v. Francis, 27 Fla. Supp. 80 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 1966).\n(2) State v. Alvarez, 42 Fla. Supp. 83 (Fla. Dade Cty. Ct. 1975).\n176\n\n\x0c(3) For opinions not published in Florida Supplement, cite to Florida Law Weekly:\nState v. Campeau, 16 Fla. L. Weekly C65 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Nov. 7, 1990).\nIf not therein, cite to the slip opinion:\nState v. Campeau, No. 90-4363 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Nov. 7, 1990).\n(d) Florida Administrative Agencies. (Cite if not in Southern Reporter.)\n(1) For decisions of the Public Employees Relations Commission: Indian River Educ. Ass\'n v.\nSchool Bd., 4 F.P.E.R. 4262 (1978).\n(2) For decisions of the Florida Public Service Commission: In re Application of Tampa Elec.\nCo., 81 F.P.S.C. 2:120 (1981).\n(3) For decisions of all other agencies: Insurance Co. v. Department of Ins., 2 F.A.L.R. 648-A\n(Fla. Dept. of Insurance 1980).\n(e) Florida Constitution. (Year of adoption should be given if necessary to avoid confusion.)\nArt. V, \xc2\xa7 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.\n(f) Florida Statutes (Official).\n\xc2\xa7 350.34, Fla. Stat. (1973).\n\xc2\xa7 120.53, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1974).\n(g) Florida Statutes Annotated. (To be used only for court-adopted rules, or references to\nother nonstatutory materials that do not appear in an officialpublication.)\n32 Fla. Stat. Ann. 116 (Supp. 1975).\n(h) Florida Laws. (Cite if not in Fla. Stat. or if desired for clarity or adoption reference.)\n(1) After 1956: Ch. 74-177, \xc2\xa7 5, at 473, Laws ofFla.\n(2) Before 1957: Ch. 22000, Laws of Fla. (1943).\n(i) Florida Rules.\nFla. R. Civ. P. 1.180.\nFla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.035.\nFla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.\nFla. R. Work. Comp. P. 4.113.\nFla. Prob. R. 5.120.\nFla. R. Traf. Ct. 6.165.\nFla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.070.\nFla. R. Juv. P. 8.070.\nFla. R. App. P. 9.100.\nFla. R. Med. 10.010.\nFla. R. Arb. 11.010.\nFla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.010.\nFla. Admin. Code R. 8H-3.02.\n177\n\n\x0cFla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5B.\nFla. Bar Code Prof. Resp. D.R. 1-101(A).\nR. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.10.\nFla. Bar Found. By-Laws, art. 2.18(b).\nFla. Bar Found. Charter, art. 3.4.\nFla. Bar Integr. R., art XI, rule 11.09.\nFla. Bd. Bar Exam. R. III.\nFla. Jud. Qual. Comm\'n R. 9. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 6.4(c).\nFla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.03.\nFla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) Robbery.\nFla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 9.3.\nFla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. (Drug Cases) 3.\nFla. Bar Admiss. R., art. III.\n(j) Florida Attorney General Opinions.\nOp. Att\'y Gen. Fla. 73-178 (1973).\n(k) United States Supreme Court.\nSansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (1965). (Cite to United States Reports, if published\ntherein; otherwise cite to Supreme Court Reporter, Lawyer\'s Edition, or United States Law\nWeek, in that order of preference. For opinions not published in these reporters, cite to Florida\nLaw Weekly Federal: California v. Hodari D., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S249(U.S. Apr. 23,\n1991).\n(l) Federal Courts of Appeals.\nGulf Oil Corp. v. Bivins, 276 F.2d 753 (5th Cir.1960). For opinions not published in the\nFederal Reporter, cite to Florida Law Weekly Federal: Cunningham v. Zant, 13 Fla. L.\nWeekly Fed. C591 (11th Cir. March 27,1991).\n(m) Federal District Courts.\nPugh v. Rainwater, 332 F. Supp. 1107 (S.D. Fla. 1971). For opinions not published in the\nFederal Supplement, cite to Florida Law Weekly Federal: Wasko v. Dugger, 13 Fla. L.\nWeekly Fed. D183 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 1991).\n(n) Other Citations. When referring to specific material within a Florida court\'s opinion,\npinpoint citation to the page of the Southern Reporter where that material occurs is optional,\nalthough preferred. All other citations shall be in the form prescribed by the latest edition of\nThe Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, The Harvard Law Review Association,\nGannett House, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. Citations not covered in this rule or in The\nBluebook shall be in the form prescribed by the Florida Style Manual published by the Florida\nState University Law Review, Tallahassee, Fla. 32306.\n\n178\n\n\x0c(o) Case Names.\nCase names shall be underscored (or italicized) in text and in footnotes.\n\nGeorgia: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Hollingsworth Concrete Prods., Inc., 274 Ga. 210, 553 S.E.2d\n270 (2001)\n....\nDonald Kendrix sought workers\' compensation benefits following an accident that occurred\nwhile he was working for Hollingsworth Concrete Products, Inc. The Administrative Law\nJudge denied the claim because Kendrix tested positive for marijuana and cocaine after the\naccident and failed to rebut the presumption found in O.C.G.A. \xc2\xa7 34-9-17 (b) (2) that the\naccident was caused by the illegal use of controlled substances. The appellate division\naffirmed, as did the superior court. We granted Kendrix\'s application to appeal to consider\nwhether O.C.G.A. \xc2\xa7 34-9-17 (b) (2) violates equal protection by differentiating between legal\nand illegal drug use. Because there is a rational basis for distinguishing between workers who\nare injured while taking prescription medication and those who are injured while taking illegal\nsubstances, we affirm.\n....\nWhen a controlled substance is given by prescription, the use of that drug is regulated by\nseveral factors that are not present when a drug is taken illegally. A physician determines the\nproper dosage and duration the medication should be taken. The doctor also informs the\npatient of any limitations on activities that should be observed while on the medication.\nAdditionally, the regulations governing the pharmacist who fills the prescription provide\nanother safeguard against misuse of a controlled substance. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 480-1 et\nseq.\n....\nThe presumption in O.C.G.A. \xc2\xa7 34-9-17 (b) (2) furthers the state\'s legitimate goal of reducing\nworkplace accidents and increasing productivity by discouraging illegal drug use. Georgia\nSelf-Insurers Guaranty Trust Fund v. Thomas, 269 Ga. 560, 562 (501 S.E.2d 818) (1998); see\nalso Ester v. National Home Centers, Inc., 335 Ark. 356, 981 S.W.2d 91, 96 (Ark. 1998)\n(upholding constitutionality of similar provision in Arkansas law).\n....\n\n179\n\n\x0cGa. Sup. Ct. R. 22, http://www.gasupreme.us/rules/#22.\nRule 22. BRIEFS: ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY.\nAny enumerated error not supported by argument or citation of authority in the brief shall be\ndeemed abandoned. All citations of authority must be full and complete. Georgia citations\nmust include the volume and page number of the official Georgia reporters (Harrison, Darby\nor Lexis). Cases not yet reported shall be cited by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals\ncase number and date of decision. The enumeration of errors shall be deemed to include and\npresent for review all judgments necessary for a determination of the errors specified.\nGa. Ct. App. R. 24(c), http://www.gaappeals.us/rules2/rules.php?name=BRIEFS.\nRule 24. Preparation.\n....\n(d) Citations. All citations of cases shall be by name of the case as well as by volume, page\nand year of the Official Report. Cases not yet reported shall be cited by the Court of Appeals\nor Supreme Court case number and date of decision.\n\nHawaii: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 984 P.2d 78 (1999)\n....\nOn September 10, 1992, Kotis was indicted for (1) murder in the second degree, in violation\nof Hawai\'i Revised Statutes (HRS) \xc2\xa7 707-701.5(1) (1993), (2) kidnapping, in violation of\nHRS \xc2\xa7 707-720(1)(e) (1993), and (3) terroristic threatening in the first degree, in violation of\nHRS \xc2\xa7 707-716(1)(d) (1993). The charges arose from an incident that occurred on or about\nSeptember 7, 1992, in which Kotis allegedly threatened his wife, Lynne Kotis, and her\ncompanion, Gregory Wittman, with a knife, restrained Lynne with intent to terrorize her, and\ncaused Lynne\'s death while in possession of a firearm.\n....\nThe Department of Health appears to have arrived at the same conclusion, as demonstrated by\nHAR \xc2\xa7 11-175-45 (1988), the rule promulgated to enforce HRS \xc2\xa7 334E-2. That rule provides\nin relevant part . . . .\nBecause Kotis was involuntarily hospitalized by order of the circuit court, HAR \xc2\xa7 11-17545(b)(3) applies to his case and authorizes the director\'s motion for an order of involuntary\nmedication. Administrative rules, like statutes, have the force and effect of law. State v. Kirn,\n180\n\n\x0c70 Haw. 206, 208, 767 P.2d 1238, 1239-40 (1989) (citing Abramson v. Board of Regents,\nUniversity of Hawaii, 56 Haw. 680, 548 P.2d 253 (1976), and Aguiar v. Hawaii Hous. Auth.,\n55 Haw. 478, 522 P.2d 1255 (1974)); Baldeviso v. Thompson, 54 Haw. 125, 129, 504 P.2d\n1217, 1221 (1972) (citing State v. Kimball, 54 Haw. 83, 503 P.2d 176 (1972)).\n....\nHawaii R. App. P. 28,\nhttp://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/court_rules/rules/hrap.htm#Rule%2028.\nRule 28. BRIEFS\n....\n(b) Opening Brief.\nWithin 40 days after the filing of the record on appeal, the appellant shall file an opening\nbrief, containing the following sections in the order here indicated:\n(1) A subject index of the matter in the brief with page references and a table of authorities\nlisting the cases, alphabetically arranged, text books, articles, statutes, treatises, regulations,\nand rules cited, with references to the pages in the brief where they are cited. Citation to\nHawai\xe2\x80\x98i cases since statehood shall include both the state and regional reporters. Citation to\nforeign cases may be to only the regional reporters. Where cases are generally available only\nfrom electronic databases, citation may be made thereto, provided that the citation contains\nenough information to identify the database, the court, and the date of the opinion.\n\nIdaho: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation Rule(s) Contents | Index | Help | < | >\nExamples from Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep\'t of Water Res., 143\nIdaho 862, 154 P.3d 433 (2007)\n....\nIn 1994, pursuant to statutory authority found in Idaho Code sections 42-603 and 42-1805, the\nDirector of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (Director), promulgated the CM Rules\nto provide the procedures for responding to delivery calls "made by the holder of a seniorpriority surface or ground water right against the holder of a junior-priority ground water right\nin an area having a common ground water supply." IDAPA 37.03.11.001. Thereafter, the CM\nRules were submitted to the Idaho Legislature in 1995 pursuant to I.C. \xc2\xa7 67-5291.\n....\nIn an appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the standard of review is the same as\nthe standard used by the district court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. State v.\nRubbermaid Incorporated, 129 Idaho 353, 355-356, 924 P.2d 615, 617-618 (1996); Thomson\n181\n\n\x0cv. Idaho Ins. Agency, Inc., 126 Idaho 527, 529, 887 P.2d 1034, 1036 (1994). Upon review, the\nCourt must liberally construe facts in the existing record in favor of the nonmoving party, and\ndraw all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.; Bonz v.\nSudweeks, 119 Idaho 539, 541, 808 P.2d 876, 878 (1991). Summary judgment is appropriate\nif "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,\nshow that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled\nto a judgment as a matter of law." McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765, 769, 820 P.2d 360, 364\n(1991). If there are conflicting inferences contained in the record or reasonable minds might\nreach different conclusions, summary judgment must be denied. Bonz, 119 Idaho at 541, 808\nP.2d at 878.\n....\nThe court further justified its incorporation of this case\'s facts into its analysis by asserting\nthat I.C. \xc2\xa7 67-5278 "contemplates the use of a factual history of a case when determining a\nrule\'s validity." Idaho Code section 67-5278 provides a means by which a party may gain\nstanding before a district court, prior to exhausting administrative remedies, in order to seek a\ndeclaratory judgment on a rule\'s validity. The statute requires that the rule itself or its\n"threatened application" interfere with or impair, or threaten to interfere with or impair, the\nlegal rights or privileges of the petitioner. I.C. \xc2\xa7 67-5278; Rawson v. Idaho State Bd. Of\nCosmetology, 107 Idaho 1037, 1041, 695 P.2d 422, 426 (Ct.App. 1985).\n....\nIdaho S. Ct. Internal R 15,\nhttp://www.isc.idaho.gov/rules/Internal_Rules_ISC_2008.pdf.\n(e) Uniform System of Citation.\nCitations appearing in opinions shall be in conformity with statutory provision of this state,\nthe rules of this Court and if not therein covered, in conformity with the current edition of \xe2\x80\x9cA\nUniform System of Citation,\xe2\x80\x9d published and distributed by the Harvard Law Review\nAssociation, or the \xe2\x80\x9cALWD (Association of Legal Writing Directors) Citation Manual: A\nProfessional System of Citation.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nIllinois: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Hines v. Dep\'t of Pub. Aid, 221 Ill. 2d 222, 850 N.E.2d 148 (2006)\n....\nFollowing briefing and a hearing, the circuit court entered a detailed order, recounting the\npertinent facts of the case and reviewing the governing law. In the circuit court\'s view, section\n5-13 of the Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/5-13 (West 2002)) and 89 Ill. Adm. Code \xc2\xa7\n102.200, an administrative regulation based on that statute, permitted the Department to seek\nreimbursement from Beverly\'s estate for the Medicaid payments it had made on Julius\' behalf.\n182\n\n\x0c....\nWhere, as here, the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce it\nas written. It may not annex new provisions or substitute different ones, or read into the\nstatute exceptions, limitations, or conditions which the legislature did not express. People ex\nrel. Department of Professional Regulation v. Manos, 202 Ill. 2d 563, 568, 782 N.E.2d 237,\n270 Ill. Dec. 43 (2002), quoting Bronson v. Washington National Insurance Co., 59 Ill. App.\n2d 253, 261-62, 207 N.E.2d 172 (1965). Moreover, as the appellate court correctly observed,\nit is a basic principle of statutory construction that "\'the enumeration of exceptions in a statute\nis construed as an exclusion of all other exceptions.\'" 358 Ill. App. 3d at 232, quoting People\nex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264, 286, 786 N.E.2d 139, 271 Ill. Dec. 881 (2003). In\ncases such as this, where a statute specifies exceptions to a general rule, no exceptions other\nthan those designated will be recognized. In re Estate of Tilliski, 390 Ill. 273, 283, 61 N.E.2d\n24 (1945). The appellate court was therefore correct to conclude that the Medicaid Act cannot\nbe construed as permitting the state to look to the estate of a spouse of a recipient of medical\nassistance for reimbursement of costs correctly paid on the recipient\'s behalf.\n....\nIll. Sup. Ct. R. 6, http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_I/ArtI.htm.\nRule 6. Citations\nCitation of Illinois cases filed prior to July 1, 2011, and published in the Illinois Official\nReports shall be to the Official Reports, but the citation to the North Eastern Reporter and/or\nthe Illinois Decisions may be added. For Illinois cases filed on or after July 1, 2011, and for\nany case not published in the Illinois Official Reports prior to that date and for which a\npublic-domain citation has been assigned, the public-domain citation shall be given and,\nwhere appropriate, pinpoint citations to paragraph numbers shall be given; a citation to the\nNorth Eastern Reporter and/or the Illinois Decisions may be added but is not required.\nCitation of cases from other jurisdictions that do not utilize a public-domain citation shall\ninclude the date and may be to either the official state reports or the National Reporter\nSystem, or both. If only the National Reporter System citation is used, the court rendering the\ndecision shall also be identified. For other jurisdictions that have adopted a public-domain\nsystem of citation, that citation shall be given along with, where appropriate, pinpoint\ncitations to paragraph numbers; a parallel citation to an additional case reporter may be given\nbut is not required. Textbook citations shall include the date of publication and the edition.\nIllinois statutes shall generally be cited to the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) but citations\nto the session laws of Illinois or to the Illinois Revised Statutes shall be made when\nappropriate.Citations of cases must be by title, to the page of the volume where the case\nbegins, and to the pages upon which the pertinent matter appears in at least one of the\nreporters cited. It is not sufficient to use only supra or infra. Citation of Illinois cases shall be\nto the official reports, but the citation to the North Eastern Reporter and/or the Illinois\nDecisions may be added. Quotations may be cited from either the official reports or the North\nEastern Reporter or the Illinois Decisions. Citation of cases from other jurisdictions shall\ninclude the date and may be to either the official State reports or the National Reporter\nSystem, or both. If only the National Reporter System citation is used, the court rendering the\ndecision shall also be identified. Textbook citations shall include the date of publication and\n183\n\n\x0cthe edition. Illinois statutes shall generally be cited to the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS)\nbut citations to the session laws of Illinois shall be made when appropriate. Prior to January 1,\n1997, statutory citations may be made to the Illinois Revised Statutes instead of or in addition\nto the Illinois Compiled Statutes.\n\nIndiana: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120\n(Ind. 2010)\n....\nIn 1988, voters approved a referendum to amend the Indiana Constitution by deleting the\ngeneral prohibition against lotteries. The General Assembly then authorized lotteries\nconducted by the State Lottery Commission and horse race gambling in 1989. See Pub. L. No.\n341-1989, 1989 Ind. Acts 2308 (special session) (codified at Ind.Code 4-30, 4-31). In 1993\nriverboat gambling was authorized subject to regulation by the Indiana Gaming Commission.\nSee Pub. L. No. 277-1993 \xc2\xa7 124, 1993 Ind. Acts 4821 (special session) (codified at I.C. 4-33).\nAside from these exceptions, gambling in this state continues to be strictly prohibited by antigaming laws. Schrenger v. Caesars Indiana, 825 N.E.2d 879, 883 (Ind. Ct. App.2005), trans.\ndenied; see I.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 35-45-5-2, 35-45-5-2 (criminalizing gambling and professional gambling\nsuch as pool-selling and bookmaking); L.E. Servs., Inc. v. State Lottery Comm\'n of Ind., 646\nN.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind. Ct. App.1995), trans. denied (holding the offering of out-of-state\nlottery tickets for sale to the public strictly prohibited by Indiana\'s anti-gaming laws).\n....\nIn this case, not only does the statutory scheme cover the entire subject of riverboat gambling,\nbut the statutory scheme and Kephart\'s common law claim are so incompatible that they\ncannot both occupy the same space. As the sole regulator of riverboat gambling, the\nCommission has adopted detailed regulations at the legislature\'s direction. See 68 Ind. Admin.\nCode \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1-1-1 to 19-1-5. Indiana Code sections 4-33-4-3(a)(9) and (c) require the\nCommission to enact a voluntary exclusion program. See 68 I.A.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 6-1-1 to 6-3-5. Under\nthis program any person may make a request to have his or her name placed on a voluntary\nexclusion list by following the required procedures. 68 I.A.C. \xc2\xa7 6-3-2. To request exclusion,\napplicants must provide contact information, a physical description, and desired time frame of\nexclusion \xe2\x80\x94 one year, five years, or lifetime. Id. Casinos must have procedures by which\nexcluded individuals are not allowed to gamble, do not receive direct marketing, and are not\nextended check cashing or credit privileges. 68 I.A.C. \xc2\xa7 6-3-4. A casino\'s failure to comply\nwith the regulations makes it subject to disciplinary action under 68 Indiana Administrative\nCode article 13.\n....\nInd. R. App. P. 22, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/appellate/.\n184\n\n\x0cRule 22. Citation Form\nUnless otherwise provided, a current edition of a Uniform System of Citation (Bluebook)\nshall be followed.\nA. Citation to Cases. All Indiana cases shall be cited by giving the title of the case followed\nby the volume and page of the regional and official reporter (where both exist), the court of\ndisposition, and the year of the opinion, e.g., Callender v. State, 193 Ind. 91, 138 N.E. 817\n(1922); Moran v. State, 644 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 1994). If the case is not contained in the\nregional reporter, citation may be made to the official reporter. Where both a regional and\nofficial citation exist and pinpoint citations are appropriate, pinpoint citations to one of the\nreporters shall be provided. Designation of disposition of petitions for transfer shall be\nincluded, e.g., State ex rel. Mass Transp. Auth. of Greater Indianapolis v. Indiana Revenue\nBd., 144 Ind. App. 63, 242 N.E.2d 642 (1968), trans. denied by an evenly divided court 251\nInd. 607, 244 N.E.2d 111 (1969); Smith v. State, 717 N.E.2d 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans.\ndenied.\nB. Citations to Indiana Statutes, Regulations and Court Rules.\n1. Citation to Indiana statutes, regulations, and court rules shall comply with the following\ncitation format for initial references and subsequent references:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nINITIAL\no SUBSEQUENT\nInd. Code \xc2\xa734-1-1-1 (20xx)\no I.C. \xc2\xa734-1-1-1\nInd. Admin. Code tit. 34, r. 12-5-1 (2004)\no 34 I.A.C. 12-5-1\n29 Ind. Reg. 11 (Oct. 1, 2005)\no 29 I.R. 11\nInd. Trial Rule 56\no T.R. 56\nInd. Crim. Rule 4(B)(1)\no Crim. R. 4(B)(1)\nInd. Post-Conviction Rule 2(2)(b)\no P-C.R. 2(2)(b)\nInd. Appellate Rule 8\no App. R. 8\nInd. Original Action Rule 3(A)\no Orig. Act. R. 3(A)\nInd. Child Support Rule 2\no Child Supp. R. 2\nInd. Child Support Guideline 3(D)\no Child Supp. G. 3(D)\nInd. Small Claims Rule 8(A)\no S.C.R. 8(A)\nInd. Tax Court Rule 9\no Tax Ct. R. 9\n185\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nInd. Administrative Rule 7(A)\no Admin. R. 7(A)\nInd. Judicial Conduct Rule 2.1\no Jud. Cond. R. 2.1\nInd. Professional Conduct Rule 6.1\no Prof. Cond. R. 6.1\nInd. Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2\no A.D.R. 2\nInd. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(2)(a)\no Admis. Disc. R. 23(2)(a)\nInd. Evidence Rule 301\no Evid. R. 301\nInd. Jury Rule 12\no J.R. 12\n\nEffective July 1, 2006, the Indiana Administrative Code and the Indiana Register are\npublished electronically by the Indiana Legislative Services Agency. For materials published\nin the Indiana Administrative Code and Indiana Register prior to that date, use the citation\nforms set forth above. For materials published after that date, reference to the appropriate\nURL is necessary for a reader to locate the official versions of these materials. The following\ncitation format for initial references and subsequent references shall be used for materials\npublished in the Indiana Administrative Code and Indiana Register on and after July 1, 2006:\nInitial: 34 Ind. Admin. Code 12-5-1 (2006)\n(see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/)\nSubsequent: 34 I.A.C. 12-5-1\nInitial: Ind. Reg. LSA Doc. No. 05-0065 (July 26, 2006)\n(see http://www.in.gov/legislative/register/irtoc.htm)\nSubsequent: I.R. 05-0065\n2. Citations to County Local Court Rules adopted pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 81 shall be cited\nby giving the county followed by the citation to the local rule, e.g. Adams LR01-TR3.1-1.\nC. References to the Record on Appeal. Any factual statement shall be supported by a\ncitation to the page where it appears in an Appendix, and if not contained in an Appendix, to\nthe page it appears in the Transcript or exhibits, e.g., Appellant\xe2\x80\x99s App. p.5; Tr. p. 231-32. Any\nrecord material cited in an appellate brief must be reproduced in an Appendix or the\nTranscript or exhibits. Any record material cited in an appellate brief that is also included in\nan Addendum to Brief should include a citation to the Appendix or Transcript and to the\nAddendum to Brief.\nD. References to Parties. References to parties by such designations as \xe2\x80\x9cappellant\xe2\x80\x9d and\n\xe2\x80\x9cappellee\xe2\x80\x9d shall be avoided. Instead, parties shall be referred to by their names, or by\ndescriptive terms such as \xe2\x80\x9cthe employee,\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9cthe injured person,\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9cthe taxpayer,\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cthe\nschool.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n186\n\n\x0cE. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations may be used without explanation in citations\nand references: Addend. (addendum to brief), App. (appendix), Br. (brief), CCS\n(chronological case summary), Ct. (court), Def. (defendant), Hr. (hearing), Mem.\n(memorandum), Pet. (petition), Pl. (plaintiff), Supp. (supplemental), Tr. (Transcript).\n\nIowa: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Al-Khattat v. Eng\'g & Land Surveying Examining Bd., 644\nN.W.2d 18 (Iowa 2002)\n....\nThere are two ways to become licensed as a professional engineer in Iowa: (1) licensure by\nexamination; and (2) licensure by comity. The first method applies to applicants seeking\noriginal licensure as a professional engineer in Iowa. To obtain initial licensure, an applicant\nmust satisfy each of the following requirements:\na. (1) Graduation from a course in engineering of four years or more in a school or college\nwhich, in the opinion of the board, will properly prepare the applicant for the examination\nin fundamental engineering subjects.\n....\nb. Successfully passing a written, oral, or written and oral examination in fundamental\nengineering subjects which is designed to show the knowledge of general engineering\nprinciples. . . . [i.e., the Fundamentals of Engineering examination]\nc.. . . [A] specific record of four years or more of practical experience in engineering work\nwhich is of a character satisfactory to the board.\nd. Successfully passing a written, oral, or written and oral examination designed to\ndetermine the proficiency and qualifications to engage in the practice of engineering. . . .\n[i.e., the Principles and Practice of Engineering examination]\nIowa Code \xc2\xa7 542B.14(1). The NCEES prepares the two examinations administered to initial\nlicensure applicants. Iowa Admin. Code r. 193C--1.4(4) (1997). Both are written, uniform\nexaminations. Id. The Fundamentals exam "covers general engineering principles," id. r.\n193C--1.4(4)(a), and is intended to satisfy the requirements of section 542B.14(1)(b), while\nthe Principles and Practice exam addresses "proficiency and qualification to engage in the\npractice of professional engineering," id. r. 193C--1.4(4)(b), and is intended to satisfy the\nrequirements of section 542B.14(1)(d).\n....\n187\n\n\x0cFurthermore, the Board has consistently interpreted section 542B.20 to reject comity licensure\nwhere the applicant has not satisfied standards comparable to those required of initial\nlicensure applicants in Iowa. See Horner v. State Bd. of Eng\'g Exam\'rs, 253 Iowa 1, 8-9, 110\nN.W.2d 371, 375 (1961). No evidence was produced indicating the Board has issued comity\nlicensure to an applicant who has not taken an examination comparable in design to the\nPrinciples and Practice of Engineering examination.\n....\nIowa R. App. P. 6.904, http://www.legis.state.ia.us/DOCS/ACO/CR/LINC/02-022011.chapter.6.pdf.\nRule 6.904 Briefs.\n....\n6.904(2) To legal authorities.\na. Cases. In citing cases, the names of parties must be given. In citing Iowa cases, reference\nmust be made to the volume and page where the case may be found in the North Western\nReporter. If the case is not reported in the North Western Reporter, reference must be made to\nthe volume and page where the case may be found in the Iowa Reports. In citing cases,\nreference must be made to the court that rendered the opinion and the volume and page where\nthe opinion may be found in the National Reporter System, if reported therein. E.g., _ N.W.2d\n_ (Iowa 20_); _ N.W.2d _ (Iowa Ct. App. 20_); _ S.W.2d _ (Mo. Ct. App. 20_); _ U.S._, _ S.\nCt._, _ L. Ed. 2d _ (20_); _ F.3d_ (_Cir. 20_); _ F. Supp. 2d _ (S.D. Iowa 20_). When quoting\nfrom authorities or referring to a particular point within an authority, the specific page or\npages quoted or relied upon shall be given in addition to the required page references.\nb. Iowa Court Rules. When citing the Iowa Court Rules parties shall use the following\nreferences: (1) "Iowa R. Civ. P."; "Iowa R. Crim. P."; "Iowa R. Evid."; "Iowa R. App. P.";\n"Iowa R. of Prof\xe2\x80\x99l Conduct"; and "Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct" when citing those rules.\n(2) "Iowa Ct. R." when citing all other rules.\nc. Unpublished opinions or decisions. An unpublished opinion or decision of a court or\nagency may be cited in a brief if the opinion or decision can be readily accessed\nelectronically. Unpublished opinions or decisions shall not constitute controlling legal\nauthority. When citing an unpublished opinion or decision a party shall include an electronic\ncitation indicating where the opinion may be readily accessed online. E.g., No. _______,\n______ WL _________, at *___ (____ 20__).\nd. Other authorities. When citing other authorities, references shall be made as follows:\n(1) Citations to codes shall include the section number and date.\n(2) Citations to treatises, textbooks, and encyclopedias shall include the edition, section,\nand page.\n188\n\n\x0c(3) Citations to all other authorities shall include the page or pages.When treatises or\ntextbooks are cited, the edition must be designated. In citing authorities other than cases,\nreferences shall be made as follows: Codes, to section number; treatises, textbooks and\nencyclopedias, to section and page; all others, to page or pages. Use of the \xe2\x80\x9csupra\xe2\x80\x9d and\n\xe2\x80\x9cinfra\xe2\x80\x9d forms of citation is discouraged.\ne. Internal cross-references. Use of "supra" and "infra" is not permitted.\n\nKansas: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Schmidt v. Kan. State Bd. of Technical Professions, 271 Kan.\n206, 21 P.3d 542 (2001)\n....\nMichael Schmidt, a licensed engineer, appeals the decision of the Shawnee County District\nCourt affirming an order of the Kansas State Board of Technical Professions (the Board). The\nBoard determined that certain construction drawings prepared by Schmidt constituted the\npractice of architecture as defined by K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 74-7003. The Board further held that\nSchmidt, unlicensed to practice architecture, was in violation of the regulations pertaining to\nprofessional conduct established by K.A.R. 66-6-4(e) (1995 Supp.) which regulations prohibit\na licensee from affixing a signature, seal, or both, to a plan dealing with a subject matter\noutside the licensee\'s field of competence. The Board publicly censured Schmidt because he\naffixed his engineer\'s seal to documents dealing with the subject matter of architecture, an\narea which it held to be outside his field of competence as established by his education,\ntraining and licensing. The Board also required that he pay costs of $ 5,000, an amount the\nBoard determined was a portion of the Board\'s investigative cost, expenses, and attorneys fees\nin prosecuting the matter, and an amount equal to the statutory limit.\n....\nBecause the primary issue in this appeal involves the interpretation of statutes and regulations,\nthe rules of statutory construction set forth in Todd v. Kelly, 251 Kan. 512, 516, 837 P.2d\n381(1992), apply. "\'"In order to ascertain the legislative intent, courts are not permitted to\nconsider only a certain isolated part or parts of an act, but are required to consider and\nconstrue together all parts thereof in pari materia."\'" Landry v. Graphic Technology, Inc., 268\nKan. 359, 365, 2 P.3d 758 (2000) (quoting Todd, 251 Kan. at 516).\nSimilarly, when interpreting administrative regulations, the courts generally will defer to an\nagency\'s interpretation of its own regulations. The agency\'s interpretation will not be\ndisturbed unless it is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Murphy v. Nelson,\n260 Kan. 589, 595, 921 P.2d 1225 (1996). However, the administrative agency may not use\nits power to issue regulations which alter the legislative act which is being administered. In re\nTax Appeal of Newton Country Club Co., 12 Kan. App. 2d 638, 647, 753 P.2d 304, rev.\ndenied 243 Kan. 779 (1988).\n189\n\n\x0c....\nKan. Ct. R. 6.08,\nhttp://www.kscourts.org/rules/Appellate_Rules/Rule%206.08.pdf.\nRule 6.08 References Within Briefs\nIn the body of a brief, unless the context particularly requires a distinction between parties as\nappellant or appellee, they should normally be referred to by their status in the district court,\ne.g., plaintiff, defendant, etc., or by name. References to court cases shall be by the official\ncitations followed by any generally recognized reporter system citations.\n\nKentucky: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Adams v. NHC Healthcare, 199 S.W.3d 163 (Ky. 2006)\n....\nNoting that the facts complied with both KRS 342.730(1)(c)1 and 2, the ALJ determined that\nthe claimant could return immediately to other regular employment at the same or a greater\nwage and awarded benefits under KRS 342.730(1)(c)2. Although the Workers\' Compensation\nBoard affirmed on the first two issues and found no error in the corrected order denying\nreconsideration, it determined that the evidence and Fawbush v. Gwinn, 103 S.W.3d 5 (Ky.\n2003), compelled an award under KRS 342.730(1)(c)1. The Court of Appeals reversed on that\nissue but affirmed otherwise.\nThe claimant raises four arguments. He asserts that 803 KAR 25:010, \xc2\xa7 14(2) entitled him to\nintroduce evidence regarding his social security disability award after proof time closed; that\noverwhelming evidence compelled the ALJ to find him totally disabled; that the corrected\norder on his petition for reconsideration violated KRS 342.125; and that the ALJ misapplied\nFawbush v. Gwinn, supra, when finding that he could work as a med tech despite ordering the\nemployer to pay for a walker. Having concluded that nothing required the ALJ to consider\nevidence submitted after proof time closed; that substantial evidence supported the finding of\npartial disability; that the entry of a corrected order denying consideration did not violate KRS\n342.125 or the regulations; and that substantial evidence supported the application of KRS\n342.730(1)(c)2, we affirm.\n....\nKy. Civ. R. 76.12(4)(g), http://kybar.org/documents/cr/cr_76.12.pdf.\n76.12 BRIEFS\n....\n(4)(g) Form of citations.\n190\n\n\x0cAll citations of Kentucky Statutes shall be made from the official edition of the Kentucky\nRevised Statutes and may be abbreviated "KRS." The citation of Kentucky cases reported\nafter January 1, 1951, shall be in the following form for decisions of the Supreme Court and\nits predecessor court: Doe v. Roe, ___ S.W.2d ___ or ___ S.W.3d ___ (Ky. [date]), or for\nreported decisions of the present Court of Appeals, Doe v. Roe, ___ S.W.2d ___ or ___\nS.W.3d ___ (Ky. App. [date]). For cases reported prior thereto both Kentucky Reports and\nSouthwestern citations shall be given.\n\nLouisiana: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State v. Alfonso, 99-1546 (La. 12/07/99), 753 So. 2d 156\n....\nLa. Adm. Code tit. 76, Part VII, \xc2\xa7 343E5 (1995), as adopted by the Wildlife and Fisheries\nCommission (Commission) purportedly pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 56:333A, requires each\nmullet permit holder to file information returns monthly during the three-month mullet season\nfixed by the Legislature, reporting the number of pounds of mullet taken commercially during\nthe preceding month and the commercial dealers to whom the mullet were sold. The criminal\ncharges filed against the forty defendants were apparently based on audits of seafood dealers\nand commercial fishermen by enforcement personnel of the Department of Wildlife and\nFisheries (DWF).\n....\nLa. Rev. Stat. 56:6(25)(a), pertaining to all wildlife and fish, authorizes the Commission to\n"promulgate rules and regulations, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures\nAct, to set seasons, times, places, size limits, quotas, daily take, and possession limits, based\nupon biological and technical data . . . ."\n....\nThis court, while recognizing that the Louisiana Constitution unequivocally mandates the\nseparation of powers among the three branches of state government, has traditionally\ndistinguished in delegation cases between delegation of legislative authority, which\nnecessarily violates the separation of powers, and delegation of ministerial or administrative\nauthority, which does not. State v. All Pro Paint and Body Shop, Inc., 93-1316, pp. 6-7 (La.\n7/5/94), 639 So. 2d 707, 711. Accordingly, although the Legislature may not delegate primary\nlegislative power, it may declare its will and, after fixing a primary standard, may confer upon\nadministrative officers in the executive branch the power to "fill up the details" by prescribing\nadministrative rules and regulations. Adams v. State Dep\'t of Health, 458 So. 2d 1295, 1298\n(La. 1984). Thus the Legislature may delegate to administrative boards and agencies of the\nstate the power "to ascertain and determine the facts upon which the laws are to be applied\nand enforced." State v. Taylor, 479 So. 2d 339, 341 (La. 1985).\n....\n191\n\n\x0cLa. Sup. Ct. Gen. Admin. R. \xc2\xa7 8,\nhttp://www.lasc.org/rules/supreme/PartGSection8.asp.\nSection 8. Citation of Louisiana Appellate Decisions.\nA. The following rules of citation of Louisiana appellate court decisions shall apply:\n(1) Opinions and actions issued by the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the Louisiana Court\nof Appeal following December 31, 1993 shall be cited according to a uniform public domain\ncitation form with a parallel citation to West\'s Southern Reporter.\n(a) The uniform public domain citation form shall consist of the case name, docket number\nexcluding letters, court abbreviation, and month, day and year of issue, and be followed by a\nparallel citation to West\'s Southern Reporter, e.g.:\nSmith v. Jones, 93-2345 (La. 7/15/94); 650 So. 2d 500, or Smith v. Jones, 93-2345 (La.App. 1\nCir. 7/15/94); 660 So.2d 400.\n(b) If a pinpoint public domain citation is needed, the page number designated by the court\nshall follow the docket number and be set off with a comma and the abbreviation "p.", and\nmay be followed by a parallel pinpoint citation to West\'s Southern Reporter, e.g.:\nSmith v. Jones, 94-2345, p. 7 (La. 7/15/94); 650 So.2d 500, 504\n(2) Opinions issued by the Supreme Court of Louisiana for the period between December 31,\n1972 and January 1, 1994, and all opinions issued by the Courts of Appeal from the beginning\nof their inclusion in West\'s Southern Reporter in 1928 until January 1, 1994, shall be cited\naccording to the form in West\'s Southern Reporter:\n(a) The citation will consist of the case name, Southern Reporter volume number, title\nabbreviation, page number, court designation, and year, e.g.:\nSmith v. Jones, 645 So.2d 321 (La. 1990)\n(b) A parallel public domain citation following the same format as that for post-January 1,\n1994 opinions may be added after the Southern Reporter citation, but is not required.\n(3) Opinions issued by the Supreme Court of Louisiana prior to the discontinuation of the\nofficial Louisiana Reports in 1972 and opinions issued by the Court of Appeal prior to their\ninclusion in the Southern Reporter in 1928 shall be cited in accordance with pre-1994\npractice, as follows:\n(a) Cite to Louisiana Reports, Louisiana Annual Reports, Robinson, Martin, Reports of the\nLouisiana Courts of Appeal, Peltier, Teisser, or McGloin if therein, and to the Southern\nReporter or Southern 2d therein.\n(b) A parallel public domain citation following the same format as that for post-January 1,\n1994 opinions may be added, but is not required.\n192\n\n\x0cB. These rules shall apply to all published actions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the\nLouisiana Courts of Appeal issued after December 31, 1993. Citation under these rules in\ncourt documents shall become mandatory for all documents filed after July 1, 1994.\nLa. Unif R. Ct. App. 2-12.4, http://www.la-fcca.org/index.php/clerks-office/uniformrules/11-uniform-rules-rule-2.\n2-12.4. Appellant\'s Brief\nCitation of Louisiana cases shall be in conformity with Section VIII of the Louisiana Supreme\nCourt General Administrative Rules. Citations of other cases shall be to volume and page of\nthe official reports (and when possible to the unofficial reports). It is recommended that where\nUnited States Supreme Court cases are cited, all three reports be cited, e.g., Miranda v.\nArizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). When a decision from another\nstate is cited, a copy thereof should be attached to the brief.\nThe argument on a specification or assignment of error in a brief shall include a suitable\nreference by volume and page to the place in the record which contains the basis for the\nalleged error. The court may disregard the argument on that error in the event suitable\nreference to the record is not made.\n\nMaine: Supreme Judicial Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | <\n\n|>\n\nExamples from Powers Trust v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2011 ME 40, 15 A.3d 1273\n....\n[\xc2\xb6 2] On April 7, 2009, Evergreen filed an application with the Department of Environmental\nProtection for permits to construct the Oakfield Wind Project, a fifty-one-megawatt wind\nenergy generation facility, in the Town of Oakfield. See 35-A M.R.S. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 3452-3455 (2008);\n38 M.R.S. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 480-A to 480-GG, 481-490 (2008). Evergreen\'s project involves the\nconstruction of thirty-four wind turbines, to be located along the ridgelines of Sam Drew\nMountain and Oakfield Hills; access roads and a crane path; approximately twelve miles of an\nelectrical collector line; an electrical collector substation; four meteorological towers; and an\noperations and maintenance building. This project is an "expedited wind energy development"\nbecause it is "a grid-scale wind energy development that is proposed for location within an\nexpedited permitting area." 35-A M.R.S. \xc2\xa7 3451 (2010).\n....\n[\xc2\xb6 4] With its application, Evergreen submitted a "Sound Level Assessment" prepared by an\nengineering company, which concluded that "sound levels from operation of the Oakfield\nWind Project will not exceed Maine DEP sound level[] limits during construction or routine\noperation." See 38 M.R.S. \xc2\xa7 484(3)(B); 2 C.M.R. 06 096 375-6 to -15 \xc2\xa7 10 (2001). To\n193\n\n\x0c"verify" compliance with the Department\'s sound level limits, the engineering company\nrecommended that Evergreen monitor actual sound levels during operation of the project.\n....\n[\xc2\xb6 9] On appeal, the Trust contends that the Board was required to hold a public hearing. We\naddressed this exact argument in Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury v. Board of\nEnvironmental Protection, 2011 ME 39, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 18-23, 15 A.3d 1263, 1270-71. In that case, we\ndetermined that the Board has discretion to decide whether to hold a public hearing when\nreviewing the Commissioner\'s decision on an application for an expedited wind energy\ndevelopment. Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury, 2011 ME 39, \xc2\xb6 23, 15 A.3d at 1271; see\nalso 38 M.R.S. \xc2\xa7 345-A(1-A), (2) (2010); 38 M.R.S. \xc2\xa7 341-D(4), (4)(D) (2009); 2 C.M.R. 06\n096 002-4 to -5, -12 \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 7(B)-(C), 24(B)(7) (2003).\n....\nMe. Admin. Order, No. SJC-216 (Aug. 20, 1996).\nThe order of this Court, dated January 27, 1966, as amended by the order of December 1,\n1982, is further amended to read as follows:\n1. The Atlantic Reporter is the official publication of the Court\'s opinions commencing\nJanuary 1, 1966.\n2. Opinions issued on or after January 1, 1966, and before January 1, 1997, shall be cited in\nthe following style:\nWestman v. Armitage, 215 A.2d 919 (Me. 1966)\n3. Opinions issued on or after January 1, 1997, shall include the calendar year, the sequential\nnumber assigned to the opinion within that calendar year, and shall be cited in the following\nstyle:\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ME 7, 685 A.2d 110\n4. The sequential decision number shall be included in each opinion at the time it is made\navailable to the public and the paragraphs in the opinion shall be numbered. The official\npublication of each opinion issued on or after January 1, 1997 shall include the sequential\nnumber in the caption of the opinion and the paragraph numbers assigned by the Court.\n5. Pinpoint citations shall be made by reference to paragraph numbers assigned by the Court\nin the following style:\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ME 7, para 14, 685 A.2d 110\n6. Memorandum Decisions and Summary Orders shall not be published in the Atlantic\nReporter and shall not be cited as precedent for a matter addressed therein.\n194\n\n\x0c[This order and all others of its vintage were withdrawn in 2005. See Me. Admin. Order, No.\nJB-05-01 (Aug. 1, 2005), http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_adminorders/adminorders/JB05-1.html. However, it continues to govern citation practice in Maine.]\n\nNote: See also University of Maine School of Law, Uniform Maine Citations (2012 ed.),\nhttp://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/pdf/UMC2012.pdf (which seeks to aid Maine\npractitioners in preparing legal briefs and memoranda, and Maine justices and judges in\nwriting opinions, by providing a system of citation for the materials most frequently cited in\nthe state).\n\nMaryland: Court of Appeals citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State Comm\'n on Human Relations v. Talbot County Det. Ctr.,\n370 Md. 115, 803 A.2d 527 (2002)\n....\nThe Maryland Commission on Human Relations ("Commission") is an independent agency\ncharged with investigating complaints of discrimination in employment, housing and public\naccommodations under Article 49B of the Maryland Code and bringing legal and equitable\nactions pertaining to those violations. See Md. Code (1957, 1998 Repl. Vol.), Art. 49B, \xc2\xa7 10.\n....\nThe Detention Center, in its response dated July 3, 2001, asserted that the Circuit Court\nlacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition for Temporary Injunctive Relief. The\nDetention Center further alleged that the Commission\'s authority to investigate was limited to\nthe investigative mechanisms set forth in Title 14, Subtitle 3 of the Code of Maryland\nRegulations. Specifically, the Detention Center argued that the Commission is only allowed\nto: (1) require a fact-finding conference; (2) require the respondent to promptly provide\nanswers to requests for information; (3) serve interrogatories on a respondent; and (4) issue\nsubpoenas, if necessary, to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the\nproduction of documents. See COMAR 14.03.01.04. With respect to the latter, the Detention\nCenter claimed that the use of the word "testimony" indicated that the Commission\'s\ninterviews of the witnesses should be formal recorded proceedings, and thus the Commission\nhad no authority to conduct interviews confidentially and in the absence of a representative\nfrom the Detention Center. 4\n....\nMaryland\'s anti-discrimination laws are embodied in Article 49B of the Maryland Code, as is\nthe Commission\'s investigatory and enforcement authority with respect to the antidiscrimination legislation. The Commission\'s comprehensive investigatory powers include the\nauthority to hold investigatory hearings for fact finding, file civil actions for injunctive relief,\n195\n\n\x0creceive and issue complaints alleging discrimination, conduct investigations into\ndiscrimination complaints, endeavor to reach conciliation between the parties, and initiate and\npursue litigationto enforce compliance. See Md. Code, Art. 49B, \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 3, 4, 9A . 10, 11, 12;\nMolesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 631, 672 A.2d 608, 613 (1996) (citing Weathersby v.\nKentucky Fried Chicken Nat\'l Management Co., 86 Md. App. 533, 545, 587 A.2d 569, 574\n(1991); rev\'d on other grounds, 326 Md. 663, 607 A.2d 8 (1992)); Gutwein v. Easton\nPublishing Co., 272 Md. 563, 564-65, 325 A.2d 740, 741 (1974). The Commission\'s\nenforcement powers, then, cover the gamut, from investigation to commencement and pursuit\nof litigation.\n....\nGenerally, appellate courts review a trial court\'s determination to grant or deny injunctive\nrelief for an abuse of discretion because trial courts, sitting as courts of equity, are granted\nbroad discretionary authority to issue equitable relief. See J. L. Matthews, Inc. v. MarylandNational Capital Park & Planning Comm., 368 Md. 71, 93, 792 A.2d 288, 301 (2002). See El\nBey v. Moorish Sci. Temple of Am., 362 Md. 339, 354-55, 765 A.2d 132, 140 (2001)(stating\nthat while normally a trial court\'s decision to grant or deny injunctive relief is reviewed for an\nabuse of discretion, "no such deference [is given] when we find \'an obvious error in the\napplication of the principles of equity\'") (quoting Western Md. Dairy, Inc. v. Chenowith, 180\nMd. 236, 244, 23 A.2d 660, 665 (1941)); Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Ass\'n, Inc.,\n361 Md. 371, 394, 761 A.2d 899, 911 (2000).\n....\n\nMd. R. 1-104, 8-504, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/.\nRule 1-104. Unreported opinions.\n(a) Not authority.- An unreported opinion of the Court of Appeals or Court of Special Appeals\nis neither precedent within the rule of stare decisis nor persuasive authority.\n(b) Citation.- An unreported opinion of either Court may be cited in either Court for any\npurpose other than as precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. In\nany other court, an unreported opinion of either Court may be cited only (1) when relevant\nunder the doctrine of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel, (2) in a criminal\naction or related proceeding involving the same defendant, or (3) in a disciplinary action\ninvolving the same respondent. A party who cites an unreported opinion shall attach a copy of\nit to the pleading, brief, or paper in which it is cited.\nRule 8-504. Contents of brief.\na) Contents.\nA brief shall comply with the requirements of Rule 8-112 and include the following items in\nthe order listed:\n196\n\n\x0c(1) A table of contents and a table of citations of cases, constitutional provisions, statutes,\nordinances, rules, and regulations, with cases alphabetically arranged. When a reported\nMaryland case is cited, the citation shall include a reference to the official Report.\n\nMassachusetts: Supreme Judicial Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents\n\n| Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from City Council of Agawam v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 437\nMass. 821, 776 N.E.2d 1002 (2002)\n....\nPursuant to its statutory mission to "provide a reliable energy supply for the commonwealth\nwith a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost," G. L. c. 164, \xc2\xa7 69H,\nthe board is charged with issuing construction permits for energy generation facilities. G. L. c.\n164, \xc2\xa7 69J 1/4, inserted by St. 1997, c. 164, \xc2\xa7 210. On June 20, 1995, Berkshire filed a\npetition to construct, requesting such a permit from the board.\n....\nThe board\'s regulations regarding the issuance of certificates divide the certificate application\nprocess into two parts: an initial petition, 980 Code Mass. Regs. \xc2\xa7 6.02 (1993); and an\napplication, 980 Code Mass. Regs. \xc2\xa7 6.03 (1993). When an energy generating company files\nan initial petition for a certificate, the board may either grant the initial petition (and proceed\nto consider the subsequent application) or consolidate that petition with the application and\nconsider them both in a combined hearing. 980 Code Mass. Regs. \xc2\xa7 6.02 (4). The board in this\ncase chose the latter course.\n....\nThe scope of our review of board decisions is limited to determining whether they conform to\nthe Massachusetts and Federal Constitutions, the provisions of \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 69H-69O, and the board\'s\nrules and regulations; whether they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the\nboard\'s proceedings; and whether they were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of the Board\'s\ndiscretion. G. L. c. 164, \xc2\xa7 69P. See Andover v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 435 Mass. 377,\n378-379, 758 N.E.2d 117 (2001). The party appealing from a decision of the board bears the\nburden of showing that the decision is invalid. Id. at 379.\n....\n\n197\n\n\x0cMass. R. App. P. 16(g),\nhttp://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/rules/appellate/mrap16.html.\nRULE 16. BRIEFS\n....\n(g) Massachusetts Reports between 17 Massachusetts and 97 Massachusetts shall be cited by\nthe name of the reporter. Any other citation shall include, wherever reasonably possible, a\nreference to any official report of the case or to the official publication containing statutory or\nsimilar material. References to decisions and other authorities should include, in addition to\nthe page at which the decision or section begins, a page reference to the particular material\ntherein upon which reliance is placed, and the year of the decision; as, for example: 334 Mass.\n593, 597-598 (1956). Quotations of Massachusetts statutory material shall include a citation\nto either the Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts or to the current edition of the General Laws\npublished pursuant to a resolve of the General Court.\n\nMichigan: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Great Wolf Lodge of Traverse City, LLC v. PSC, 489 Mich. 27,\n799 N.W.2d 155 (2011)\n....\nA court reviewing an administrative agency\'s interpretation of a statute should give the\nagency\'s interpretation "respectful consideration" and, if it is persuasive, should not overrule it\nwithout "cogent reasons." In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich., 482 Mich. 90, 108,\n754 N.W.2d 259 (2008). We have held that "[i]n construing administrative rules, courts apply\nprinciples of statutory construction." Detroit Base Coalition for Human Rights of the\nHandicapped v. Dep\'t of Social Servs., 431 Mich. 172, 185, 428 N.W.2d 335 (1988), citing\nGen. Motors Corp. v. Bureau of Safety & Regulation, 133 Mich.App. 284, 349 N.W.2d 157\n(1984). All rates, fares, charges, classification and joint rates, regulations, practices, and\nservices prescribed by the PSC are presumed, prima facie, to be lawful and reasonable. MCL\n462.25; see also Mich. Consol. Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 389 Mich. 624, 635-636, 209\nN.W.2d 210 (1973).\n....\nThe Court of Appeals reasoned that MCL 460.558 does not apply solely in cases of "wilful or\nknowing failure to comply with a lawful PSC order; it also applies in the event of negligent\nnoncompliance." We disagree. Under the Court of Appeals\' construction, MCL 460.558\nwould require that a fine be imposed any time a utility or its agent fails to comply with a PSC\norder. If that construction were what the Legislature intended in enacting MCL 460.558, there\nwould have been no need to include the modifiers "wilfully or knowingly." Rather, the\n198\n\n\x0cLegislature could simply have mandated a fine in cases in which a party "fails or neglects" to\nobey a PSC order.\n....\nWe hold that a utility\'s right of first entitlement under Mich. Admin Code, R 460.3411(11)\nentails the right to serve the entire premises. That right is not extinguished when there is a\nnew customer, i.e., new "buildings and facilities served," on the premises. We also hold that,\nabsent a statutory mandate to do so, the PSC need not impose interest when it awards a refund\nto a party. Finally, we hold that the PSC is required to impose a fine pursuant MCL 460.558\nonly when a utility willfully or knowingly neglects to comply with its order. Therefore, we\nreverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the decision of the PSC.\n....\nMich. Admin. Order 2006-3,\nhttp://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/9Michig\nanUniformSystemOfCitation.pdf.\nI. Citation of Authority\nA. Citation of Cases\n1. Initial Citation.\nThe first time a case is cited in an opinion, either in the body of the text or in a footnote,\ncite in full the official reporter of its jurisdiction (where available), and include the parallel\ncitation of the regional reporter.\nMayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579; 374 NW2d 683 (1985).\nIf a case is first cited in an order, either in the body of the text or in a footnote, cite the\nofficial report only.\nMayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579 (1985).\nWhere an official citation is not yet available, provide blanks for the volume and page\nnumbers.\nMayberry v Pryor, _____ Mich ____; 374 NW2d 683 (1985).\n2. Subsequent Citation.\na. Once cited in full in the text, a case need not be cited again in full in the text or a\nfootnote. Subsequent reference in the text or in a footnote may use any of the following\nshortened forms:\n\n199\n\n\x0cE.g., Mayberry; Mayberry, supra; Mayberry v Pryor. (N.B.: "Id." may be used as a\nsubsequent reference only if no other authority intervenes between the previous citation\nof the same source and "id.")\nb. Where a case is cited in full in a footnote, a subsequent short-form citation may be used\nin a subsequent footnote to refer the reader to the full citation:\nMayberry, n 4 supra.\n3. Point or "jump" citation.\na. To refer to an internal page of an opinion, cite the official reporter where available:\n1) initial citation: include the "jump" page in the complete citation:\nMayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579, 587; 374 NW2d 683 (1985); or\n2) subsequent citation: append the "jump" page to any short-form citation:\nMayberry, supra, p 587; Mayberry, supra at 587; Mayberry, p 587; id., p 587; id. at 587;\n422 Mich 587.\n(N.B.: The form of the short-form citation must be consistent throughout an opinion. Do\nnot mix Mayberry, supra, p 587, with Mayberry, supra at 587.)\nb. If the official report of a case is not yet available, refer to the "jump" page in an\nunofficial report:\n1) initial citation: Galster v Woods (On Rehearing), 173 Cal App 3d 529, ____; 219 Cal\nRptr 500, 509 (1985);\n2) subsequent citation: Galster, supra, 219 Cal Rptr 509; or id., 219 Cal Rptr 509; or 219\nCal Rptr 509 (N.B.: it is mandatory in this situation that the identity of the unofficial\nreporter be shown because references to pages not otherwise identified are presumed to\nbe to the official reporter.)\n4. Case names.\na. Italicizing. Names of cases should be italicized both in the text of an opinion and in\nfootnotes. Underscoring no longer should be used to indicate italics.\nb. Official sources. Cite the name of a case as set forth on the first page of the official\nreporter as fully as necessary for recognition. Do not show et al., et ux., or like references\nto other parties in a case name, but do show ex rel (for on the Relation of or for the use and\nbenefit of) and the relator\'s name.\n\n200\n\n\x0cNote: The full order sets out a complete Michigan Uniform System of Citation, "a\ncomprehensive scheme for citation of authority in documents filed with or issued by Michigan\ncourts."\n\nMinnesota: Supreme Court citation practice\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Breza v. City of Minnetrista, 725 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2006)\n....\nBreza sought a writ of mandamus from the district court. The district court found that Breza\n"applied for an exemption for the 5,757 square feet that had been filled," n6 and that the city\ntook more than one year to respond to the application. The court held that Breza\'s request was\napproved by operation of law under Minn. Stat. \xc2\xa7 15.99, and issued a writ of mandamus\ncompelling the city to approve his exemption request. The city appealed to the Minnesota\nCourt of Appeals, which reversed. Breza v. City of Minnetrista, 706 N.W.2d 512, 519 (Minn.\nApp. 2005). That court held that because the city did not have the authority to grant an\nexemption for more than 400 square feet, the city had fully satisfied its official duties and a\nwrit of mandamus was therefore not appropriate. Id. at 518-519.\n....\nBreza brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus. To be entitled to mandamus relief,\nBreza must show that: 1) the city "failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law";\n2) he "suffered a public wrong" and was specifically injured by the city\'s failure; and 3) he has\n"no other adequate legal remedy." See N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro. Council, 684\nN.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2004). The district court\'s decision to issue the writ was based on the\ndetermination that Breza\'s application was approved by operation of law. When a decision on\na writ of mandamus is based solely on a legal determination, we review that decision de novo.\nSee Castor v. City of Minneapolis, 429 N.W.2d 244, 245 (Minn. 1988).\n....\nFinally, the legislature has defined ten specific types of activites for which an exemption from\nthe no-filling-without-replacement prohibition can be approved. Local government units\n(LGUs) like the city have the authority to grant exemptions. Minn. R. 8420.0210 (1999)\n("Local government units may offer exemption certificates as part of the wetland program in\ntheir jurisdiction.").\n....\n\n201\n\n\x0cMississippi: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Alford v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 30 So. 3d 1212 (Miss. 2010)\n....\n\xc2\xb6 11. In order to be eligible for Medicaid, the applicant must meet certain financial and nonfinancial criteria. See Miss. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 43-13-115 (Rev.2009). Married applicants who\nreceive long-term care (i.e., institutionalized spouses) have specific limitations on their\nincome and resources. The Division must determine the couple\'s income and resources and\nallocate resources between the institutionalized spouse and the community spouse when\ndetermining eligibility. See 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 1396r-5 (2006). . . .\n....\n\xc2\xb6 17. When reviewing an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court applies a de novo\nstandard of review. Schmidt v. Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, 18 So.3d 814, 821 (Miss.2009).\n....\n\xc2\xb6 29. We find that the opinions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Missouri Court of\nAppeals provide a more compelling interpretation of the spousal-impoverishment provisions.\nNotably, 42 U.S. Code Section 1396r-5(e) specifically provides a mechanism for\nadministrative review and revision of the CSMIA, MMMNA, and CSRA. Furthermore,\nMississippi Code Section 43-13-116 sets forth the administrative-hearing process and\nprovides that an aggrieved claimant "is entitled to seek judicial review in a court of proper\njurisdiction." Miss.Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 43-13-116(3)(e)(xvii) (Rev.2009). This Court previously has\nruled that "`where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided, relief must be\nsought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act.\'" Davis v. Barr, 250 Miss. 54,\n157 So.2d 505, 507 (1963) (quoting 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law, \xc2\xa7 595, p. 426). This\nCourt also has described the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which is relevant to the case sub\njudice:\nthe courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is\nwithin the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to the decision of that\nquestion by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of\nsound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and\nservices of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters\nof fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the\nregulatory statute administered.\nIll. Cent. R. Co. v. M.T. Reed Const. Co., 51 So.2d 573, 575 (Miss.1951) (quoting 42 Am.Jur.\nPublic Administrative Law, \xc2\xa7 254). However, Mrs. Alford argues that the doctrine of\nadministrative remedies should not apply, as the Division\'s rule states:\n\n202\n\n\x0cThe CS [community spouse] share of total countable resources is the maximum\nallowed under federal law. In order for a CS to receive a share larger than the\nfederal maximum, a court order would be required granting the CS a greater share\nof total resources after Medicaid had made a decision regarding spousal shares.\nCode Miss. R. 13 000 036 at \xc2\xa7 9210 (Rev. 1999) (emphasis added). Mrs. Alford argues that\nthe Division\'s own rules limit its authority to grant the requested relief, and as such, an\nadministrative appeal is futile and a waste of resources.\n....\nMiss. R. App. P. 28(f),\nhttp://www.mssc.state.ms.us/rules/msrulesofcourt/rules_of_appellate_procedu\nre.pdf.\nRULE 28. BRIEFS\n....\n(f) References in Briefs to the Record and Citations. All briefs shall be keyed by reference to\npage numbers (1) to the record excerpts filed pursuant to Rule 30 of these Rules, and (2) to\nthe record itself.\n(1) The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall assign paragraph numbers to the\nparagraphs in all published opinions. The paragraph numbers shall begin at the first paragraph\nof the text of the majority opinion and shall continue sequentially throughout the majority\nopinion and any concurring or dissenting opinions in the order that the opinions are arranged\nby the Court.\n(2) All Mississippi cases shall be cited to either:\n(i) the Southern Reporter and, in cases decided prior to 1967, the official Mississippi\nReports (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 699 So.2d 100 (Miss. 1997)); or\n(ii) for cases decided from and after July 1, 1997, the case numbers as assigned by the\nClerk\'s Office (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 95-KA-01234-SCT (Miss. 1997)).\n(3) Quotations from cases and authorities appearing in the text of the brief shall be cited in\none of the following ways:\n(i) preceded or followed by a reference to the book and page in the Southern Reporter\nand/or the Mississippi Reports where the quotation appears (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 699 So.2d\n100, 102 (Miss. 1997)); or\n(ii) in cases decided from and after July 1, 1997, preceded or followed by a reference to the\ncase number assigned by the Clerk\'s Office and paragraph number where the quotation\nappears (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 95-KA-01234-SCT (\xc2\xb61) (Miss. 1997)); or\n(iii) in cases decided from and after July 1, 1997, preceded or followed by a reference to\nthe book and paragraph number in the Southern Reporter where the quotation appears (e.g.,\nSmith v. Jones, 699 So.2d 100 (\xc2\xb61) (Miss. 1997)); or\n203\n\n\x0c(iv) in cases decided prior to July 1, 1997, preceded or followed by a reference to the case\nnumber assigned by the Clerk\'s Office and paragraph number where the quotation appears\nwhen the case is added to the Court\'s Internet web site in the new format, i.e., with\nparagraph numbers (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 93-CA-05678-SCT (\xc2\xb61) (Miss. 1995)); or\n(v) preceded or followed by a parallel citation using both the book citation and the case\nnumber citation.\n\nMissouri: Supreme Court citation practice\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State ex rel. Sunshine Enters. of Mo., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment,\n64 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. 2002)\n....\nThe city denied Sunshine a merchant\'s license, based on the zoning district of the address. See\nsec. 94.270 RSMo 2000. Sunshine appealed to the Board, for approval or a variance. After the\nappeal was filed, but before the hearing, the city passed Ordinance 2074, amending the\n"definitions" in the zoning code.\n....\nUnder-$ 500 lending has the same or similar characteristics as personal services and financial\ninstitutions. Sections 400.370.B, D, H. Short-term consumer loans are similar to a personal\nservice, as indicated by the exclusion of pawn shops and check cashing establishments.\nSection 400.370.B. Under-$ 500 lenders - like banks, savings and loan associations, and credit\nunions - offer unsecured loans to consumers. See secs. 362.105, 369.144(15), 369.229,\n369.695.1, 370.070(2), 370.300, 370.310 RSMo 2000; 4 CSR 140-20.046 (2001). Thus, under$ 500 lending is a permitted use. Sections 400.370.B, D, H.\n....\nThe city claims that, even if permitted by section 400.370, Sunshine is excluded by Ordinance\n2074. The city views Ordinance 2074 as a land use "zoning" regulation. See secs. 89.010-040\nRSMo 2000. Zoning ordinances are presumptively within the police power. Flora Realty and\nInv. Co. v. City of Ladue, 362 Mo. 1025, 246 S.W.2d 771, 778 (Mo. banc 1952); State ex rel.\nHelujon, Ltd. v. Jefferson County, 964 S.W.2d 531, 536 (Mo. App. 1998). This Court has long\nheld that ordinances that are regulatory, but not prohibitory, do not conflict with state law.\nTeefey, 24 S.W.3d at 685-86; Page Western, Inc. v. Community Fire Prot. Dist., 636 S.W.2d\n65, 67 (Mo. banc 1982); State ex rel. Hewlett v. Womach, 355 Mo. 486, 196 S.W.2d 809, 814\n(Mo. banc 1946).\n....\n\nMontana: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n204\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\n\x0cExamples from Briese v. Mont. Pub. Emples. Ret. Bd., 2012 MT 192, 366 Mont.\n148, 285 P.3d 550\n....\n\xc2\xb6 14 Mootness is a threshold issue which must be resolved before addressing the underlying\ndispute. Med. Marijuana Growers Ass\'n v. Corrigan, 2012 MT 146, \xc2\xb6 18, 365 Mont. 346, 281\nP.3d 210 (citing Povsha v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 353, \xc2\xb6 19, 340 Mont. 346, 174 P.3d\n515). The mootness doctrine is one of several doctrines designed to limit the judicial power of\nthis Court to justiciable controversies\xe2\x80\x94that is, controversies "upon which a court\'s judgment\nwill effectively operate, as distinguished from . . . dispute[s] invoking a purely political,\nadministrative, philosophical, or academic conclusion." Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v.\nStuivenga, 2012 MT 75, \xc2\xb6 16, 364 Mont. 390, 276 P.3d 867. The fundamental question to be\nanswered in any review of possible mootness is "whether it is possible to grant some form of\neffective relief to the appellant." Stuivenga, \xc2\xb6 37.\n\xc2\xb6 15 MPERB claims that it is impossible to grant effective relief to Erene because, once the\npayments commenced, MPERB had fully discharged its obligations under the law. MPERB\ncites \xc2\xa7 19-2-803, MCA, in support of its position.\n....\n\xc2\xb6 18 When denying Erene\'s initial claim for benefits in 2008, MPERA did not inform her of\nher right to challenge the denial by appeal to MPERB. Under Admin. R. M. 2.43.1501(2)\n(2003), Erene had the right to appeal MPERA\'s decision to MPERB. MPERA, in two separate\nletters to Erene dated May 30, 2008, (1) stated that MPERA was "require[d]" to honor the\n2006 change of beneficiaries, and (2) informed Erene that she "must complete, have notarized\nand return to this office" the claim forms for the children before being provided with the\npayment options that were available. It gave no indication that further review was available by\nappeal to MPERB under Admin. R. M. 2.43.1501(2) at that time. As a matter of due process,\nMPERA was obligated to inform Erene of any right to appeal and the procedures for seeking\nsuch appeal. See Pickens v. Shelton-Thompson, 2000 MT 131, \xc2\xb6 13, \xc2\xb6 15, 300 Mont. 16, 3\nP.3d 603 (citing Mont. Const. art. II, \xc2\xa7 17; Dorwart v. Caraway, 1998 MT 191, \xc2\xb6 76, 290\nMont. 196, 966 P.2d 1121).\n....\nMont. Sup. Ct. Internal Op. Rules, \xc2\xa7 VII,\nhttp://courts.mt.gov/content/library/docs/cite_cases.pdf.\n(1) At the time of issuance, this Court shall assign to all opinions and to those orders\ndesignated by this Court for publication (hereinafter referred to as substantive orders), a\ncitation which shall include the calendar year in which the opinion or substantive order is\nissued followed by the Montana U.S. Postal Code (MT) followed by a consecutive number\nbeginning each year with "1" (for example, 1998 MT 1). This citation shall be known as the\npublic domain or neutral-format citation and shall appear on the title page of each opinion and\non the first page of each substantive order issued by this Court. State Reporter Publishing\n205\n\n\x0cCompany and West Group are requested to publish this public domain, neutral-format citation\nwithin the heading of each opinion or substantive order published by those companies.\n(2) Beginning with the first paragraph of text, each paragraph in every such opinion and\nsubstantive order shall be numbered consecutively beginning with a \xc2\xb6 symbol followed by an\nArabic numeral, flush with the left margin, opposite the first word of the paragraph. Paragraph\nnumbers shall continue consecutively throughout the text of the majority opinion or\nsubstantive order and any concurring or dissenting opinions or rationale. Paragraphs within\nfootnotes shall not be numbered nor shall markers, captions, headings or Roman numerals\nwhich merely divide opinions or sections thereof. Block-indented single-spaced portions of a\nparagraph shall not be numbered as a separate paragraph. State Reporter Publishing Company\nand West Group are requested to publish these paragraph numbers in each opinion or\nsubstantive order published by those companies.\n(3) In the case of opinions which are not to be cited as precedent (variously referred to as\nunpublished, "noncite," or memorandum opinions) and in the case of all substantive orders\n(unless otherwise specifically designated by this Court), the consecutive number in the public\ndomain or neutral-format citation shall be followed by the letter "N" to indicate that the\nopinion or substantive order is not to be cited as precedent in any brief, motion or document\nfiled with this Court or elsewhere (for example, 1998 MT 1N). Any "N" citation,\nnevertheless, shall be listed along with the result, case title and Supreme Court cause number\nin the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court and published by State Reporter\nPublishing Company and West Group.\n(4) In the case of opinions or substantive orders which are withdrawn or vacated by a\nsubsequent order of this Court, the public domain, neutral-format citation of the withdrawing\nor vacating order shall be the same as the original public domain, neutral-format citation but\nfollowed by a letter "W" (for example, 1998 MT 1W). An opinion or substantive order issued\nin place of one withdrawn or vacated shall be assigned the next consecutive number\nappropriate to the date on which it is issued.\n(5) In the case of opinions or substantive orders which are amended by a subsequent order of\nthis Court, the public domain, neutral-format citation of the amending order shall be the same\nas the original public domain, neutral-format citation but followed by a letter "A" (for\nexample, 1998 MT 1A). Amended paragraphs shall contain the same number as the paragraph\nbeing amended. Additional paragraphs shall contain the same number as the immediately\npreceding original paragraph but with the addition of a lower case letter (for example, if two\nnew paragraphs are added following paragraph 13 of the original opinion, the new paragraphs\nwill be numbered \xc2\xb6 13a and \xc2\xb6 13b). If a paragraph is deleted, the number of the deleted\nparagraph shall be skipped in the sequence of paragraph numbering in any subsequently\npublished version of the amended opinion or substantive order, provided that at the point\nwhere the paragraph was deleted, there shall be a note indicating the deletion of that\nparagraph.\n(6)The following are examples of citations to Montana Supreme Court opinions:\nFor cases decided before January 1, 1998:\n206\n\n\x0cPrimary cite: Roe v. Doe (1997), 284 Mont. 301, 989 P.2d 472.\nPrimary cite with pinpoint cite: Roe v. Doe (1997), 284 Mont. 301, 305, 989 P.2d 472, 475.\nPinpoint cite alone: Roe, 284 Mont. at 305, 989 P.2d at 475.\nFor cases decided from and after January 1, 1998:\nPrimary cite: Doe v. Roe, 1998 MT 12, 286 Mont. 175, 989 P.2d 1312.\nPrimary cite with pinpoint cite: Doe v. Roe, 1998 MT 12, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 44-45, 286 Mont. 175, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 4445, 989 P.2d 1312, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 44-45.\nPinpoint cite: Doe, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 44-45.\nIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the citation formats adopted herein are in addition to and\nsupplement the current citation formats used by this Court. The Montana Reports is the\nofficial reporter of this Court\'s opinions and this Court will continue to cite to both its official\nreporter and to the regional, Pacific, reporter in addition to the public domain, neutral-format\ncitation. This Court encourages the adoption and use of these formats in all briefs, memoranda\nand other documents filed in this Court.\nMont. Sup.Ct. Order of Jan. 22, 2009\nPursuant to its authority under Article VII, Section 2(3) of the Constitution of the State of\nMontana, this Court filed an order on December 16, 1997, adopting citation formats for use in\nits opinions, including a public domain or neutral-format citation. The Court has now\ndetermined to simplify the format set forth in that order for pinpoint citations to opinions\ndecided after January 1, 1998, by eliminating the requirement that paragraph number(s) be\nrepeated for all three sources cited.\nTHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, effective immediately, proper pinpoint citations to\nopinions decided by this Court after January 1, 1998, shall be in the form shown in the\nfollowing example:\nDoe v. Roe, 1998 MT 12, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 44-45, 286 Mont. 175, 989 P.2d 1312\nIn all other respects, the Court\xe2\x80\x99s order filed December 16, 1997, shall remain unchanged.\n\n207\n\n\x0cNebraska: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Bethesda Found. v. Neb. Dep\'t of Soc. Serv., 243 Neb. 130, 498\nN.W.2d 86 (1993)\n....\nThe Nebraska Department of Social Services is responsible for the administration of the\nmedicaid program pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. \xc2\xa7 68-1018 et seq. (Reissue 1990). In\nadministering the program, the department reimburses medicaid-certified nursing home\nfacilities for the cost of care to medicaid-eligible patients. The department determines\npayment or reimbursement rates for a nursing home based on allowable costs incurred by the\nfacility. Payment for long-term-care services is set forth in 471 Neb. Admin. Code, \xc2\xa7 12-011\net seq. (1987). Rates paid to long-term-care providers must be "reasonable and adequate to\nmeet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities to\nprovide services in conformance with state and federal laws, regulations, and quality and\nsafety standards." 471 Neb. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 12-011.02.\n....\nSince October 17, 1977, the Nebraska medicaid program has recognized depreciation as an\nallowable cost. The regulations also provide for the recapture of depreciation upon the sale\nof a long-term-care facility for a profit. Depreciation in 471 NAC 12-011.08D refers to real\nproperty only. A long term care facility which is sold for a profit and has received NMAP\npayments for depreciation, shall refund to the Department the lower of - 1. The amount of\ndepreciation allowed and paid by the Department between July 1, 1976, and the time of\nsale of the property; or 2. The product of the ratio of depreciation paid by the Department\nsince July 1, 1976, to the total depreciation accumulated by the facility (adjusted to total\nallowable depreciation under the straight-line method, if any other method has been used)\ntimes the difference in the sale price of the property over the book value of the assets sold. .\n..\n471 Neb. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 12-011.08D.\n....\nThis court has previously determined that the department\'s change in its depreciation\nrecapture regulation did not have a retroactive effect and therefore could not violate a\nprovider\'s right to due process. See H.H.N.H., Inc. v. Department of Soc. Servs., 234 Neb.\n363, 451 N.W.2d 374 (1990). Bethesda is not entitled to conclude that its depreciation\nreimbursement was not subject to being recaptured upon the sale of its facilities, and it did not\nhave a constitutionally protected property right in those reimbursements.\n....\n\n208\n\n\x0cNeb. Ct. R. App. Pract. 2-109,\nhttp://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/supreme-court-rules/1738/%C2%A7-2-109briefs.\n9. BRIEFS.\n....\nC. General Rules for Preparation of Briefs.\nIn the preparation of the brief, the following general rules shall be observed:\n....\n(4) Every reference to a reported case shall set forth the title thereof, the volume and page\nwhere found, the tribunal deciding the case, and the year decided. If the cited opinion is long,\nit shall also refer to the page where the pertinent portion of the opinion is found. Nebraska\ncases shall be cited by the Nebraska Reports and/or Nebraska Appellate Reports, but may\ninclude citation to such other reports as may contain such cases.\n(5) If a current statute is relied upon, it must be cited from the last published revision or\ncompilation of the statutes, or supplement thereto, if contained therein; if not contained\ntherein, to the session laws wherein contained, or the legislative bill as enacted.\n(6) Citations to textbooks, encyclopedias, and other works shall give the title, edition, year of\npublication, volume number, section, and page where found.\n\nNevada: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Nev. Tax Comm\'n v. Nev. Cement Co., 36 P.3d 418 (Nev. 2001)\n....\nIn contrast to a retail sale, items that are sold for resale are tax exempt. These items are\npurchased for the purpose of being resold. More specifically, no sales tax applies to property\npurchased for resale in the regular course of business. This sale-for-resale exemption from the\nsales tax is found under the definition of "retail sale" in NRS 372.050, which provides that a\nretail sale is "a sale for any purpose other than resale in the regular course of business of\ntangible personal property."\n....\nOur decision finds support in the Department\'s tax regulation pertaining to property used in\nmanufacturing. We have previously stated that the interpretation by the agency charged with\nadministering a statute is persuasive, and that great deference should be given to that\ninterpretation if it is within the language of the statute. See Collins Discount Liquors v. State\n209\n\n\x0cof Nevada, 106 Nev. 766, 768, 802 P.2d 4, 5 (1990); Nevada Power Co. v. Public Serv.\nComm\'n, 102 Nev. 1, 4, 711 P.2d 867, 869 (1986). NAC 372.370(1) states that a tax applies to\nthe sale of tangible personal property purchased "for the purpose of use in manufacturing,\nproducing, or processing tangible personal property and not for the purpose of physically\nincorporating it into the manufactured article to be sold." Subsection (2) of that regulation\nstates that a tax does not apply to the sale of tangible personal property purchased "for the\npurpose of incorporating it into the manufactured article to be sold." NAC 372.370 focuses on\nthe purpose for which property is purchased. The requirement that the purpose be "primary" is\nimplicit. NAC 372.370 is therefore consistent with NRS 372.050, and sets forth a primarypurpose test.\n....\nNev. Sup. Ct. R. 123.\nRULE 123. Citation to unpublished opinions and orders\nAn unpublished opinion or order of the Nevada Supreme Court shall not be regarded as\nprecedent and shall not be cited as legal authority except when the opinion or order is (1)\nrelevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel; (2) relevant\nto a criminal or disciplinary proceeding because it affects the same defendant or respondent in\nanother such proceeding; or (3) relevant to an analysis of whether recommended discipline is\nconsistent with previous discipline orders appearing in the state bar publication.\n\nNew Hampshire: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help\n\n|<|>\n\nExamples from State v. Caswell, 146 N.H. 243, 769 A.2d 387 (2001)\n....\nWe next consider the defendant\'s argument that the trial court erred by admitting Sergeant\nBourque\'s testimony to establish that the Intoxilyzer was properly certified and operating\nproperly at the time of the test. RSA 265:85 (Supp. 2000) provides that "no tests of . . . breath\nauthorized by RSA 265:84, IV shall be considered as evidence in any proceeding before any .\n. . court unless such test is performed in accordance with methods prescribed by the\ncommissioner of the department of health and human services." These rules are codified in\nNew Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Part He-P 2207, and became effective April 1,\n1996. As a result, we review the evidence presented at trial in accordance with these rules.\n....\nRule He-P 2207.05 (a) provides that "the forensic breath testing supervisor II shall conduct a\npreventive maintenance check on each approved instrument 6 months after the initial check\nand at 6 month intervals." This rule further states that the "the forensic breath testing\nsupervisor II shall certify the accuracy of the approved instrument by signing and dating the\n210\n\n\x0cpreventive maintenance check form, pursuant to RSA 265:90, II." N.H. Admin. Rules, He-P\n2207.05 (d). It is incumbent upon the State to establish that the breath test has been conducted\nin accordance with the rules, including the successful completion of the required preventive\nmaintenance check and the certification of the Intoxilyzer\'s accuracy. See RSA 265:85, IV\n(Supp. 2000).\n....\nThere are no administrative rules or statutes governing the admissibility of radar evidence. It\nis a "fundamental principle that the results of scientific tests are inadmissible unless there is\nproof that the test device was operating accurately and that the test was performed by\nqualified individuals." State v. Ahern, 122 N.H. 744, 745, 449 A.2d 1224 (1982). "This\nimposes a responsibility upon the proponent seeking admission of such evidence to establish\nthe prima facie reliability of any test results." State v. Lee, 134 N.H. 392, 395, 593 A.2d 235\n(1991).\n....\nN.H. Sup. Ct. R. 16, http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/scr/scr-16.htm.\nRule 16. Briefs.\n....\n(9) All references in a brief or memorandum of law to the appendix or to the record must be\naccompanied by the appropriate page number.\nCitations to Supreme Court of the United States cases that cannot be made to the official\nUnited States Reports or to the Supreme Court Reporter shall include the month, day, and\nyear of decision or a reference to United States Law Week. Citations to other federal decisions\nnot presently reported shall identify the court, docket number, and date.\nCitations to the decisions of this court may be to the New Hampshire Reports only. Citations\nto other State court decisions may either be: (a) to the official report and to the West Reporter\nsystem, with the year of decision; or (b) to the West Reporter only, in which case the citation\nshould identify the State court by name or level, and should mention the year of decision.\n\n211\n\n\x0cNew Jersey: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Toll Bros., Inc. v. Township of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502, 803\nA.2d 53 (2002)\n....\nThis is a second round Mount Laurel exclusionary zoning case brought by Toll Brothers, Inc.\n(Toll Brothers) against the Township of West Windsor, the Township Committee of the\nTownship of West Windsor, and the Planning Board of the Township of West Windsor\n(collectively "West Windsor" or the "Township"). Toll Brothers, the owner of a 293 acre tract\nof land located in West Windsor, alleged below that the Township had engaged in\nexclusionary zoning in violation of the New Jersey Constitution and the Fair Housing Act of\nNew Jersey (FHA), N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 to -329, and sought a builder\'s remedy from the trial\ncourt.\n....\nUnder N.J.A.C. 5:93-5.15(d)1 to -5.15(d)2, COAH outlines its bonus credit system for rental\nunits. For every one rental unit made available to the general public, COAH grants the\nmunicipality two units of credit, id. at -5.15(d)1; age-restricted rental units produce 1.33 units\nof credit. Id. at -5.15(d)2.\n....\nOur analysis of these issues entails a two-tiered inquiry, each subject to a separate and distinct\nstandard of review. The determination whether market demand should be considered in\nassessing whether a municipality\'s zoning ordinances are exclusionary is a question of law\nthat we review de novo. Balsamides v. Protameen Chem., Inc., 160 N.J. 352, 372, 734 A.2d\n721 (1999) (stating that "matters of law are subject to a de novo review"). We give deference\nto the trial court\'s factual findings, e.g., that West Windsor\'s sewer requirements are cost\ngenerative, as such findings should not be disturbed "when supported by adequate, substantial\nand credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474,\n484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974).\n....\nN.J. Ct. R. 2:6-2, http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r2-6.htm.\n2:6-2. Contents of Appellant\'s Brief\n(a) Formal Brief. Except as otherwise provided by R. 2:6-4(c)(1) (statement in lieu of brief),\nby R. 2:9-11 (sentencing appeals), and by paragraph (b) of this rule, the brief of the appellant\nshall contain the following material, under distinctive titles, arranged in the following order:\n....\n212\n\n\x0c(5) The legal argument for the appellant, which shall be divided, under appropriate point\nheadings, distinctively printed or typed, into as many parts as there are points to be argued.\nNew Jersey decisions shall be cited to the official New Jersey reports by volume number but\nif not officially reported that fact shall be stated and unofficial citation made. All other state\ncourt decisions shall be cited to the National Reporter System, if reported therein and, if not,\nto the official report. In the citation of all cases the court and year shall be indicated in\nparentheses except that the year alone shall be given in citing the official reports of the United\nStates Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and the highest court of any other\njurisdiction.\n\nNote: The format of citations in the opinions of the New Jersey courts is the subject of a\ndetailed Manual of Style for Legal Citation in New Jersey,\nhttp://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/appdiv/manualonstyle.pdf.\n\nNew Mexico: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State v. Johnson, 2009-NMSC-049, 147 N.M. 177, 218 P.3d 863\n(2009)\n{1} After allegedly striking three private security guards while visiting Gallup High School,\nDefendant Derrick Johnson was charged with three counts of battery on school personnel,\ncontrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-9(E) (1989), which prohibits battery upon "school\nemployee[s]." The district court dismissed the charges, concluding that because the security\nguards were providing contractual services at the high school, they were not "school\nemployees" as defined in Section 30-3-9(A)(2). The State appealed.\n....\n{6} The district court granted Defendant\'s motion to dismiss, concluding that Moeckle,\nCachini and King "[were] not `school employees\' as defined by NMSA 1978, \xc2\xa7 30-39(A)(2)[.]" The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision. State v. Johnson, 2008-NMCA106, \xc2\xb6 1, 144 N.M. 629, 190 P.3d 350. To determine whether the security guards were "school\nemployees" within the meaning of Section 30-3-9, the Court of Appeals majority stated that\nits task was to give the words of the statute their ordinary meaning. Johnson, 2008-NMCA106, \xc2\xb6 8. It concluded that this determination "is informed by the undisputed relationship\nbetween the school board and the school security guards." Id. \xc2\xb6 9. Thus, the Court of Appeals\'\nanalysis was guided by cases that analyze whether an employer-employee relationship exists\nby determining whether the employer had the right to control the details of the work to be\nperformed by the employee. Id.\n....\n{15} The purpose of the battery upon school personnel statute is to decrease incidents of\nviolence at schools by enhancing the penalties for crimes committed against "employees" of\n213\n\n\x0cthe school. The law enacting Section 30-3-9 was entitled "An Act Relating to Public School\nViolence and Vandalism[.]" 1989 N.M. Laws, ch. 344. Thus, one of the Legislature\'s explicit\npurposes was to reduce violence in schools. Indeed, the State Board of Education has\nrecognized that school boards throughout New Mexico have the "authority and responsibility\nto provide a safe environment for student learning" in order to effectively educate New\nMexico\'s children. 6.11.2.6 NMAC.\n{16} We also look to related provisions of the Administrative Code to examine whether\nsecurity guards are traditionally viewed as school employees. In the section of the Code that\ndeclares the rights and responsibilities of public schools and public school students, the State\nBoard of Education defines "[s]chool personnel" as "all members of the staff, faculty and\nadministration employed by the local school board [,] ... includ[ing] school security\nofficers[.]" 6.11.2.7(T) NMAC (emphasis added). Among the provisions of these regulations,\na student may be appropriately disciplined for endangering the health or safety of "school\npersonnel," meaning that if a student commits an act that endangers the health or safety of a\nsecurity guard, that student may be disciplined. 6.11.2.10(C)(1) NMAC. We acknowledge that\nthese regulations are not an interpretation of Section 30-3-9. However, they nonetheless\ndemonstrate two important principles: (1) they support our conclusion that the ordinary\nmeaning of "school employee" includes school security guards; and (2) they demonstrate that\ndeterring assaults on security guards furthers the policy to provide a safe environment in\nwhich students can learn. It is to this policy, shared by Section 30-3-9, that we now turn.\n....\n\nN. M. Sup. Ct. R. 23-112,\nhttp://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmrules/NMRules/23-112_5-31-2013.pdf.\n23-112. Citations for pleadings and other papers.\nA. Applicability; citation rule appendix. This rule governs the form of citations included in\npleadings and papers filed in the courts of this state. Additional citation guidelines and\nexamples of correct forms of citation are included in an appendix immediately following this\nrule and are posted on the Supreme Court\xe2\x80\x99s website at nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov.\nB. Citation to New Mexico appellate opinions.\n(1) Official citation. All precedential opinions issued by the Supreme Court of\nNew Mexico and the New Mexico Court of Appeals shall be assigned an official\ncitation by the Clerk of the Supreme Court that includes the year the opinion was\nreleased, the initials of the Court that issued the opinion, and a three-digit number\nassigned sequentially as opinions are released for publication each calendar year.\n(2) Official citation required; use of parallel citation. Use of the official citation\nform is required for citations to all opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of\nAppeals. When a pinpoint citation is used, it shall consist of a paragraph symbol\nand a paragraph number placed after the official citation. Parallel citation to the\n214\n\n\x0cNew Mexico Reports is mandatory, and citation to the Pacific Reporter is\ndiscretionary. Do not cite the unofficial hardbound volumes of the New Mexico\nAppellate Reports.\n(3) Exception for papers and pleadings filed by a self-represented litigant. A selfrepresented litigant may cite an opinion of the Supreme Court or the Court of\nAppeals using either the official citation, a citation to the New Mexico Reports, or a\ncitation to the Pacific Reporter. The self-represented litigant\xe2\x80\x99s use of any parallel\ncitation is discretionary.\nC. Citation to New Mexico statutes. Citations to the New Mexico statutes shall be to the\nchapter, article, and section of the official 1978 compilation of the New Mexico Statutes\nAnnotated (NMSA 1978), followed by parentheses containing the year of the statute\xe2\x80\x99s\nenactment or the most recent amendment applicable to the pending case. The official\ncompilation of the NMSA 1978 is published by the New Mexico Compilation Commission,\nthe official legal publisher for the State of New Mexico.\nD. Citation to New Mexico court rules, uniform jury instructions, and forms. Citations to\nthe rules, uniform jury instructions, and forms promulgated or approved by the Supreme\nCourt shall be to the set and rule number of the New Mexico Rules Annotated (NMRA), which\nis the official compilation of New Mexico state court rules published by the New Mexico\nCompilation Commission.\nE. Citation to the New Mexico Administrative Code. Citations to the rules or regulations of\na state agency shall be to the title, chapter, part, and section of the New Mexico Administrative\nCode (NMAC).\nE. Citation to New Mexico statutes. Citations to the New Mexico statutes shall be to the\nchapter, article and section of the 1978 compilation of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated\n(NMSA).\nF. Bluebook citations. Except as provided in this rule and its appendix, all pleadings and\nother papers filed in all courts in this state shall follow the form of citations set forth in the\ncurrent edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.\n\nNote: The appendix to Rule 21-113 is to be found at:\nhttp://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmrules/NMRules/23-112%20Appendix_5-31-2013.pdf.\n\n215\n\n\x0cNew York: Court of Appeals citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Aliessa v. Novello, 96 N.Y.2d 418, 754 N.E.2d 1085, 730 N.Y.S.2d\n1 (2001)\n....\nPlaintiffs brought a class action in Supreme Court seeking a declaration that Social Services\nLaw \xc2\xa7 122 violates article XVII, sections 1 and 3 of the New York State Constitution and the\nEqual Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions. The putative\nclass consists of "all Lawful Permanent Residents who entered the United States on or after\nSeptember 22, 1996 and all [PRUCOLs] who, but for the operation of New York Social\nServices Law \xc2\xa7 122, would be eligible for Medicaid coverage in New York State." The State\nmoved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, for which plaintiffs crossmoved. Deferring its decision on class certification, Supreme Court denied the State\'s motion\nand granted in part plaintiff\'s motion for summary judgment, declaring that section 122 of the\nSocial Services Law violates article XVII, \xc2\xa7 1 of the New York State Constitution and the\nEqual Protection Clauses of the United States and New York Constitutions. (Aliessa v\nWhalen, 181 Misc 2d 334.)\nThree days later, the Appellate Division decided Alvarino v Wing (261 AD2d 255). In that\ncase, resident aliens argued that Social Services Law \xc2\xa7 95 unconstitutionally denied them\nfood assistance. The court held that because the State enacted the statute in direct response to\na Federal supplemental appropriations bill (Pub L 105-18), the challenged classification\nshould be evaluated, for equal protection purposes, under a rational basis standard rather than\nthe strict scrutiny standard Supreme Court had employed.\n....\nIf a State wants to extend Medicaid benefits to others, it is free to proceed at its own expense.\nNew York has done so. It has provided non-federally subsidized Medicaid benefits to certain\ncategories of individuals, including residents between the ages of 21 and 65 whose income\nand resources fall below a statutory "standard of need" and who are not otherwise entitled to\nfederally subsidized Medicaid (see, Social Services Law \xc2\xa7 366 [1]; 18 NYCRR 360-3.3 [b]).\nThus, New York State\'s Medicaid system has two components: one that is federally\nsubsidized and one that the State funds entirely on its own.\n....\nThe State argues that the allocation scheme here does not contravene Tucker. It contends that\nthe Constitution affords it discretion to set levels of benefits for the needy and, in the exercise\nof that discretion, it has provided plaintiffs full safety net assistance and emergency medical\ntreatment. We agree that article XVII, \xc2\xa7 1 affords the State wide discretion in defining who is\nneedy and in setting benefit levels. Indeed, in Matter of Barie v Lavine (40 NY2d 565, 566),\nthis Court upheld a regulation that required welfare recipients to participate in a work referral\nprogram and denied them benefits for 30 days if they failed to comply.\n216\n\n\x0c....\nIn this context, plaintiffs and amici argue that when such patients are treated in emergency\nsettings, the hospitals are not permitted to release them without a discharge plan for necessary\ncontinuing health care services, citing Public Health Law \xc2\xa7 2803 (1) (g). Because they cannot\nbe readily discharged, many remain in hospital facilities. Those who are discharged\nexperience a cycle of emergency, recovery, stabilization, deterioration and the onset of\nanother emergency. All of this, plaintiffs and amici contend, could be avoided through\nongoing medical treatment.\n....\nN.Y. Ct. App. R. Pract. \xc2\xa7 500.1(g),\nhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/500rules10.htm#500_1.\n....\n(g) Citation form. Where New York authorities are cited in any submissions, New York\nOfficial Law Report citations shall be included, if available.\n\nNote: The format of citations in the published opinions of the New York courts is the subject\nof a detailed manual of the New York State Law Reporting Bureau, the New York Official\nReports Style Manual (2012), http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/Styman_Menu.htm.\n\nNorth Carolina: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | <\n\n|>\n\nExamples from Craig v. County of Chatham, 356 N.C. 40, 565 S.E.2d 172 (2002)\n....\nThe enactment and operation of a general, statewide law does not necessarily prevent a county\nfrom regulating in the same field. However, preemption issues arise when it is shown that the\nlegislature intended to implement statewide regulation in the area, to the exclusion of local\nregulation. See N.C.G.S. \xc2\xa7 160A-174(b) (5) (2001). "\'Municipal by-laws and ordinances must\nbe in harmony with the general laws of the State, and whenever they come in conflict with the\ngeneral laws, the by-laws and ordinances must give way.\'" State v. Williams, 283 N.C. 550,\n552, 196 S.E.2d 756, 757 (1973) (quoting Town of Washington v. Hammond, 76 N.C. 33, 36.\n(1877)). The law of preemption is grounded in the need to avoid dual regulation. See, e.g.,\n283 N.C. at 554, 196 S.E.2d at 759.\n....\n\n217\n\n\x0cTurning now to the Health Board Rules enacted by the Chatham County Board of Health, we\nnote that they contain more stringent rules than those established in the EMC regulations.\nHowever, N.C.G.S. \xc2\xa7 130A-39 specifically grants local boards of health the power to enact\nrules which are more strict when they are "required to protect the public health." N.C.G.S. \xc2\xa7\n130A-39(b). In an effort to protect the environment, the EMC has created a system of\npermitting and inspection which regulates waste management systems on farms, including\nswine farms of more than 250 swine. See 15A NCAC 2H .0217(a) (1) (A) (Sept. 2001).\n....\nIn holding that the Swine Ordinance and the Health Board Rules were preempted by state law,\nthe Court of Appeals reasoned that the Chatham County Board of Commissioners and the\nChatham County Board of Health sought to regulate an area in which the General Assembly\nhad provided a "complete and integrated regulatory scheme" of swine farm regulations. Craig\nv. County of Chatham, 143 N.C. App. 30, 545 S.E.2d 455 (2001); see also N.C.G.S. \xc2\xa7 160A174(b) (5). We concur in this assessment.\n....\nN.C. R. App. P., App. B,\nhttp://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/html/pdf/therules.pdf.\nTABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES\nImmediately following the index and before the inside caption, all briefs, petitions, and\nmotions that are ten pages or greater in length shall contain a table of cases and authorities.\nCases should be arranged alphabetically, followed by constitutional provisions, statutes,\nregulations, and other textbooks and authorities. The format should be similar to that of the\nindex. Citations should be made according to the most recent edition of A Uniform System of\nCitation. Citations to regional reporters shall include parallel citations to official state\nreporters.\n\nNorth Dakota: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < |\n\n>\n\nExamples from Zarrett v. Zarrett, 1998 ND 49, 574 N.W.2d 855\n....\n[\xc2\xb68] A trial court has continuing power to modify an earlier child support order. E.g., Steffes\nv. Steffes, 1997 ND 49, \xc2\xb614, 560 N.W.2d 888; Eklund v. Eklund, 538 N.W.2d 182, 185 (N.D.\n1995). Child support orders are given only "limited finality," resulting in an exception to the\nrule of claim preclusion. Eklund, 538 N.W.2d at 185. Thus, res judicata ordinarily will not\nprevent reexamination of a child support order, and, if the motion to modify support comes\nmore than one year after the earlier order, N.D.C.C. \xc2\xa7 14-09-08.4(3) "directs the court to\nmodify it to meet the guidelines." Eklund, 538 N.W.2d at 186; see also Nelson, 547 N.W.2d at\n218\n\n\x0c744. The statutory scheme clearly envisions periodic reviews of child support orders to ensure\nsupport is at all times consistent with the current guidelines amount. See N.D.C.C. \xc2\xa7 14-0908.4. The trial court erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata in this case.\n....\n[\xc2\xb612] Robert asserts that, even if the stipulation is unenforceable, the court could have\nnevertheless reached the same result by treating the $33,000 college payments as a "continued\nor fixed expense" over which he had no control under N.D.A.C. \xc2\xa7 75-02-04.1-09(2)(j),\nthereby rebutting the presumptively correct amount under the guidelines. The trial court made\nno specific finding the presumptively correct amount had been rebutted, as required by the\nguidelines. See, e.g., In re L.D.C., 1997 ND 104, \xc2\xb68, 564 N.W.2d 298. Furthermore, deviation\nfrom the guidelines amount is appropriate only if the court first finds by a preponderance of\nthe evidence that a deviation "is in the best interest of the supported children." N.D.A.C. \xc2\xa7 7502-04.1-09(2). There is no evidence in this record, nor a finding by the court, that it is in\nDiana and David\'s best interest to allow Robert to pay less than the guidelines amount for\ntheir support.\n....\nN.D. R. Ct. 11.6,\nhttp://www.court.state.nd.us/Court/Rules/NDROC/RULE11.6.htm.\n(a) Citations Before January 1, 1997. The initial citation of any published opinion of the\nSupreme Court released before January 1, 1997, contained in a brief, memorandum, or other\ndocument filed with any trial or appellate court and a citation in the table of cases in a brief\nmust include a reference to the volume and page number of the North Western Reporter in\nwhich the opinion is published. Subsequent citations within a brief, memorandum, or other\ndocument must include the page number and sufficient reference to identify the initial\ncitation.\n(b) Citations After January 1, 1997. When available, initial citations must include the volume\nand initial page number of the North Western Reporter in which the opinion is published. The\ninitial citation of any published opinion of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals released on\nor after January 1, 1997, contained in a brief, memorandum, or other document filed with any\ntrial or appellate court and the citation in the table of cases in a brief must also include a\nreference to the calendar year in which the decision was filed, followed by the court\ndesignation of "ND" for the Supreme Court or "ND App" for the Court of Appeals followed\nby a sequential number assigned by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. A paragraph citation\nshould be placed immediately following the sequential number assigned to the case.\nSubsequent citations within the brief, memorandum or other document must include the\nparagraph number and sufficient references to identify the initial citation.\n\n219\n\n\x0cEXPLANATORY NOTE\nRule 11.6 was adopted, effective March 5, 1997, subject to comment, to implement the use of\nmedium-neutral case citations in North Dakota.\nFor Illustrative Purposes.\nCite to a North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion published prior to January 1, 1997 as follows:\nSmith v. Jones, 500 N.W.2d 600, 601 (N.D. 1994).\nSmith, 500 N.W.2d at 601.\nId. at 602.\nBlack v. Black, 79 N.D. 100, 101, 60 N.W.2d 500, 501 (1953).\nBlack, 79 N.D. at 101, 60 N.W.2d at 501.\nId. at 103, 60 N.W.2d at 502.\nCite to a North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion published after January 1, 1997, as follows:\nBefore publication in North Western Reporter:\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ND 15.\nAfter publication in North Western Reporter:\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ND 15, 600 N.W.2d 900.\nSpot cite to a North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion published after January 1, 1997, as\nfollows:\nBefore publication in North Western Reporter:\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ND 15, \xc2\xb6 21.\nSmith, 1997 ND 15, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 21-25.\nId. at \xc2\xb6 15.\nAfter publication in North Western Reporter:\nSmith v. Jones, 1997 ND 15, \xc2\xb6 21, 600 N.W.2d 900.\nSmith, 1997 ND 15, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 21-25, 600 N.W.2d 900.\nId. at \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 15.\nThe use of the \xc2\xb6 symbol in spot citations is necessary to distinguish paragraph numbers from\npage numbers. "N.D." (with periods) refers to the "North Dakota Reports," which were\npublished between 1890 and 1953. "ND" (without periods) refers to the database containing\nthe electronic version of opinions filed after January 1, 1997. North Dakota Court of Appeals\n220\n\n\x0ccases filed after January 1, 1997 are to be cited in the same manner as North Dakota Court\nSupreme Court cases using the database identifier "ND App" (without periods).\n\nOhio: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State ex rel. Kolcinko v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 2012\nOhio 46, 131 Ohio St. 3d 111, 961 N.E.2d 178\n....\n{\xc2\xb62} "Because the final OP & F board decision is not appealable, mandamus is available to\ncorrect an abuse of discretion by the board in denying disability benefits." State ex rel.\nTindira v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 130 Ohio St.3d 62, 2011 Ohio 4677, 955 N.E.2d\n963, \xc2\xb6 28. A clear legal right to the requested relief in mandamus exists "where the board\nabuses its discretion by entering an order which is not supported by \'some evidence.\'" Kinsey\nv. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen\'s Disability & Pension Fund of Ohio, 49 Ohio St.3d\n224, 225, 551 N.E.2d 989 (1990).\n{\xc2\xb63} In November 2009, the board of trustees upheld its previous decision denying\nKolcinko\'s application for disability-retirement benefits. Kolcinko claimed entitlement to an\naward of benefits under R.C. 742.38(D)(1), which provides, "A member of the fund who is\npermanently and totally disabled as the result of the performance of the member\'s official\nduties as a member of a police or fire department shall be paid annual disability benefits in\naccordance with division (A) of section 742.39 of the Revised Code." "\'Totally disabled\'\nmeans a member of the fund is unable to perform the duties of any gainful occupation for\nwhich the member is reasonably fitted by training, experience, and accomplishments," and\n"\'[p]ermanently disabled\' means a condition of disability from which there is no present\nindication of recovery." R.C. 742.38(D)(1)(a) and (b).\n....\n{\xc2\xb67} Under R.C. 742.38 and Ohio Adm.Code 742-3-05, the OP & F board is vested with the\nexclusive authority to evaluate the weight and credibility of the medical evidence in\ndetermining a member\'s entitlement to disability-retirement benefits. Notwithstanding Dr.\nPoa\'s and Dr. Resnick\'s conclusion that Kolcinko was permanently disabled, they further\nnoted that Dr. Francis McCafferty had observed that Kolcinko complained of "certain patterns\nor combinations of features that are unusual or atypical in clinical populations but relatively\ncommon among individuals feigning mental disorder." Dr. Poa and Dr. Resnick opined that\nKolcinko had a lower whole-person impairment (12 percent) than the 15 percent figure\ndetermined by Dr. Smarty.\n....\n\n221\n\n\x0cOhio Sup. Ct. R. for the Reporting of Decisions (2012),\nhttp://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/rules/reporting/Report.pdf.\nRule 2.5 Format.\n....\nAll text of opinions of the Supreme Court shall have numbered paragraphs to assist in the\npinpoint citation of specific portions of the opinion. Numbering shall exclude paragraphs of\nthe syllabus, footnotes, headings, block quotations, and editorial content from legal\npublishers. In all respects, the format of opinions posted to the Supreme Court website shall\nconform to the conventions adopted by the Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions.\n....\nRule 2.6. Citations.\nCitations in opinions of the Supreme Court shall follow the Writing Manual adopted by the\nSupreme Court.\n....\nRule 3.2. Supreme Court Website Designated the Ohio Official Reports.\nThe Supreme Court hereby designates the Supreme Court website as the Ohio Official\nReports for opinions of the courts of appeals and the Court of Claims as of July 1, 2012.\n\nNote: The manual referenced in the reporter\xe2\x80\x99s rules contains detailed citation rules. By its\nterm they apply only to the format of Ohio Supreme Court opinions. However, to quote from\nthe manual\xe2\x80\x99s preface \xe2\x80\x9cAlthough judges and lawyers are not required to conform to the\nWriting Guide, they are strongly encouraged to use it in writing opinions and briefs.\xe2\x80\x9d See\nOhio Sup. Ct., Writing Manual: A Guide to Citations, Style, and Opinion Writing (2012),\nhttp://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/manual.pdf.\n\n222\n\n\x0cOklahoma: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp., 2010 OK 3, 230 P.3d 853\n....\n\xc2\xb6 3 The defendants moved to dismiss the action asserting (1) the petition failed to state a\nclaim upon which relief could be granted and (2) the Oklahoma Corporation Commission\n(Commission) has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The trial judge denied this motion.\nHe ruled (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the cause and (2) the plaintiffs\' theories\nof liability may be supported by the duty created by the terms of 52 O.S. \xc2\xa7 391. The\ndefendants moved to secure the trial judge\'s certification of the 4 December 2008 order which\ndenied the defendants\' motion to dismiss for immediate interlocutory review. They urge the\nissues presented affect the entirety of the merits of the controversy and an immediate appeal\nwill advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The trial judge certified his nonfinal\nruling for appeal under the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 1.50. This court granted\ncertiorari to review the certified interlocutory order.\n\xc2\xb6 4 When reviewing a trial court\'s dismissal of an action an appellate court examines the\nissues de novo. Lockhart v. Loosen, 1997 OK 103, \xc2\xb6 4, 943 P.2d 1074, 1077; Washington v.\nState ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 1996 OK 139, \xc2\xb6 7, 915 P.2d 359, 361; Indiana Nat. Bank v.\nState Dept. of Human Services, 1994 OK 98, \xc2\xb6 2, 880 P.2d 371, 375. . . .\n\xc2\xb6 5 The defendants first assert the plaintiffs\' claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the\nCorporation Commission and not of the district court. According to the defendants, the\nplaintiffs\' claims do not deal merely with the adjudication of private rights between\nindividuals. They are an inherent challenge to the public-policy determinations over which the\nCommission has exclusive jurisdiction. In their supplemental brief the defendants cite the\nfollowing statutes and administrative rules dealing with fuel in support of their claim that the\nCommission has exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute: 83 O.S. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 111, 112 (directing the\nCommission to promulgate standards, rules and regulations concerning measuring devices for\npetroleum products); OAC \xc2\xa7 165: 15-7-2 (deals with the characteristics of gasoline and\nlabeling of measuring devices); 2 O.S. \xc2\xa7 11-22(E), (authorizing the Commission to\npromulgate rules to govern the sale of ethanol and gasoline mixtures); 52 O.S. \xc2\xa7 325\n(conferring jurisdiction on the Commission to prescribe rules and specifications for safety and\nquality of fuels and burning oils, including gasoline); OAC \xc2\xa7 165:15-1-1 (purpose of this\nchapter is to provide a comprehensive regulatory program governing the sale and use of\ngasoline and other fuels); and OAC \xc2\xa7 165:15-9-3 (providing that the alcohol content of motor\nfuel sold at airports for fueling aircraft must be labeled but disclosure of fuel additives for\nother retail sellers to be permissive).\n....\n\xc2\xb6 9 The defendants next assert the trial judge incorrectly determined that the provisions of 52\nO.S. \xc2\xa7 391\xe2\x80\x94whose terms provide that it is unlawful for an entity to sell any liquid fuels\nwhich deceive the purchaser concerning the nature, quality or identity of the product sold\xe2\x80\x94\n223\n\n\x0cimposed a duty on sellers to disclose the ethanol content of their fuel. They rely on 17 O.S.\nSupp. 2003 \xc2\xa7 620 whose terms specifically provide that sellers of motor fuel are not required\nto post information concerning the presence of fuel additives. According to the defendants,\nthey were under no duty to disclose the content of fuel additives before 1 July 2008 when the\nterms of 52 O.S. Supp. 2008 \xc2\xa7 347 became effective. In absence of any duty to provide this\ninformation, the defendants contend they cannot be held liable for the plaintiffs\' asserted\nclaims against them for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties and for\nviolation of the Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. \xc2\xa7 751 et seq.\n....\nOkla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.11, 1.200,\nhttp://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKRUSC&level=1.\n1.11\n....\n(L) CITATION TO AUTHORITY.\nThe citation to opinions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil\nAppeals shall be in accordance with Rule 1.200(c), (d) and (e). The citation of other\nauthorities shall be to the volume and page of the National Reporter System, if applicable, or\nto some selected case system, if practical. Where a decision cited in the brief is not included\nin the National Reporter System a copy may be included in an appendix to the brief. See\nRules 1.11(i)(1) and 1.191(d). Citations to decisions of the United States Supreme Court shall\nbe to the official reporter, the United States Reports, and may also include parallel citations to\nother reporters, or to some selected case system, if practical.\n1.200\n....\n(E) CITATION TO DESIGNATION BY SUPREME COURT AND REPORTERS.\nPublished opinions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court promulgated after May 1, 1997 shall bear\nas an official cite the Oklahoma Supreme Court\'s paragraph citation form in accordance with\nthis Rule. Opinions of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals that are published after May 1,\n1997 shall bear as an official citation form the Oklahoma Supreme Court\'s paragraph citation\nform in accordance with this Rule. The numbers of the paragraphs are assigned by the Court.\nThe parallel cite to the official reporter is also required.\nThe court designation for the Oklahoma Supreme Court is OK when the paragraph citation\nform is used. The Court designation for the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals is "OK CIV\nAPP" for the purposes the Supreme Court paragraph citation form. The court designation for\nCourt of Appeals of Indian Territory is IT when the paragraph citation form is used to cite\nopinions of that court.\n224\n\n\x0cPrior to January 1, 1998 citation to opinions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Court of\nCivil Appeals shall include citations to Pacific and Pacific 2d Reporters. Citation to the\nSupreme Court\'s paragraph citation is allowed as a parallel cite, but not required. Effective\nJanuary 1, 1998, Citation to opinions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court shall be as follows:\n1. Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinions Promulgated Prior to May 1, 1997. Opinions\npromulgated (filed) prior to May 1, 1997 shall be cited by reference to the Pacific and Pacific\n2nd Reporters. Parallel citation to the Supreme Court\'s official paragraph citation form is\nstrongly encouraged for opinions promulgated prior to May 1, 1997. Parallel citation to\nOklahoma Reports is allowed. However, parallel citation to Oklahoma Reports shall not be\nmade when the Supreme Court\'s official paragraph citation form is used.\nExamples of permissible citation form for opinions prior to May 1, 1997:\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, 890 P.2d 922.\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, \xc2\xb69, 890 P.2d 922.\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, 890 P.2d 922, 925.\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla.1995)\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922, 925 (Okla.1995).\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla.1995).\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922, 925 (Okla.1995).\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, Okl., 890 P.2d 922 (1995).\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, Okl., 890 P.2d 922, 925 (1995).\nIn "Skinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, \xc2\xb69, 890 P.2d 922" "1995" refers to the\nyear the opinion was promulgated, "OK" is the court designation for the Oklahoma Supreme\nCourt, "11" is the number of the opinion in 1995 assigned to that opinion by the Oklahoma\nSupreme Court, " \xc2\xb69" is paragraph number 9 of the opinion as designated by the Supreme\nCourt, and "890 P.2d 922" is the parallel citation to Pacific 2d Reporter.\n2. Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinions Promulgated After May 1, 1997. Opinions\npromulgated (filed) after May 1, 1997 shall be cited by reference to the Supreme Court\'s\nofficial paragraph citation form. Parallel citation to Pacific 2nd and subsequent Pacific\nReporters is REQUIRED. The parallel cite to Pacific 2d Reporter may include a cite to the\nspecific page of that Reporter if a specific paragraph is cited. When the Supreme Court\nparagraph citation form is used citation to a footnote need not include the paragraph number\nwhere the note occurs in the opinion.\nExamples of citation form for post-May 1, 1997 opinions using a pre-May 1, 1997 opinion:\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, 890 P.2d 922.\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, \xc2\xb69, 890 P.2d 922.\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, \xc2\xb69, 890 P.2d 922, 925.\nSkinner v. Braum\'s Ice Cream Store, 1995 OK 11, n. 10, 890 P.2d 922.\nAn opinion cited subsequent to issuance of the mandate therein but prior to official\npublication shall be cited using the following as an example: Wilkinson v. Dean Witter\nReynolds, Inc., 1997 OK 20, P.2d , (mandate issued April 3, 1997).\n225\n\n\x0cIn a matter where no mandate issues an opinion may be cited prior to official publication\nwhen the time to file a petition for rehearing has lapsed and no petition for rehearing was\nfiled. The following is an example: Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals, 1997 OK 22, P.2d ,\n(petition for rehearing not filed).\n3. Opinions of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Published opinions of the Oklahoma\nCourt of Civil Appeals promulgated after May 1, 1997 shall be cited by reference to the\nSupreme Court\'s official paragraph citation form. Parallel citation to Pacific 2nd Reporters is\nrequired. Published opinions prior to May 1, 1997 shall be cited using the Pacific Reporter 2d,\nand parallel citation to the paragraph citation form is strongly encouraged. Opinions of the\nCourt of Civil Appeals, no matter when published, are subject to the other provisions of Rule\n1.200.\n4. Citation to Opinions Supported by Less Than a Majority. The paragraph citation form is\nalso used to designate material in a published opinion where that opinion is supported by less\nthan a majority of the members of the Supreme Court. When material from such an opinion is\ncited the name of the author, names of any Justices joining the opinion, and the type of\nopinion MUST be designated in the cite. For example, to cite paragraph number nine of the\ndissenting opinion in Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals, 1997 OK 22, P.2d . The correct\ncitation form is: Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals, 1997 OK 22, \xc2\xb69, P.2d , (Opala, J.,\ndissenting in part). A footnote of this dissenting opinion is cited thus: Edwards v. Basel\nPharmaceuticals, 1997 OK 22, n.12, P.2d , (Opala, J., dissenting in part). A published\nopinion, or part thereof, of the Supreme Court has no precedential effect unless a majority of\nthe Court have joined therein.\nOkla. Crim. App. R. 3.5(C),\nhttp://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/Index.asp?ftdb=STOKRUCR&level=1.\nC. Argument and Citation of Authorities.\n(1) Both parties must provide a brief argument, exhibiting a clear statement of the point of law\nor fact to be discussed, with a reference to the pages of the record filed and the authorities\nrelied upon in support of each point raised.\n(2) Citation to opinions of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals shall include citations to\nPacific, Pacific 2nd, and Pacific 3rd Reporters. Citation to the Court\xe2\x80\x99s official paragraph\ncitation form is allowed as a parallel cite, but not required. Effective January 1, 1998, citation\nto opinions of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals shall be as follows:\n(a) Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions in which mandate has issued prior to\nJanuary 1, 1954, shall include citations to Pacific and Pacific 2nd Reporters. Parallel\ncitation to Oklahoma Criminal Reports is strongly encouraged. Examples of permissible\ncitation form include:\n(i) Hunter v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 402, 264 P.2d 997 (1953).\n(ii) Hunter v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 402, 264 P.2d 997, 998 (1953).\n226\n\n\x0c(iii) Hunter v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 402, 403, 264 P.2d 997, 998 (1953).\n(iv) Hunter v. State, 264 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr.1953).\n(v) Hunter v. State, 264 P.2d 997, 998 (Okl.Cr.1953).\n(b) Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions in which mandate has issued after\nJanuary 1, 1954, shall include citations to Pacific, Pacific 2nd, and Pacific 3rd Reporters.\nParallel citation to the official paragraph citation form of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\nAppeals is strongly encouraged. Examples of permissible citation form include:\n(i) Burns v. State, 1955 OK CR 46, 282 P.2d 258.\n(ii) Burns v. State, 1955 OK CR 46, 282 P.2d 258, 259.\n(iii) Burns v. State, 1955 OK CR 46, \xc2\xb69, 282 P.2d 258, 259.\n(iv) Burns v. State, 282 P.2d 258 (Okl.Cr.1955).\n(v) Burns v. State, 282 P.2d 258, 259 (Okl.Cr.1955).\nIn "Burns v. State, 1955 OK CR 46, \xc2\xb69, 282 P.2d 258", "1955" refers to the year the\nmandate issued, "OK CR" is the court designation for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal\nAppeals, "46" is the number of that 1955 opinion assigned by the Court, "\xc2\xb69" is\nparagraph number 9 of the opinion as designated by the Court, and "282 P.2d 258" is the\nparallel citation to the Pacific 2nd reporter.\n(c) An opinion cited subsequent to issuance of the mandate but prior to official publication\nshall include citation to the Oklahoma Bar Journal. Parallel citation to the official\nparagraph citation form of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is strongly\nencouraged. Examples of permissible citation form include:\n(i) Robinson v. State, 1997 OK CR 24, 68 OBJ 1379 (1997).\n(ii) Robinson v. State, 1997 OK CR 24, 68 OBJ 1379, 1381(1997).\n(iii) Robinson v. State, 1997 OK CR 24, \xc2\xb63, 68 OBJ 1379, 1381 (1997).\n(iv) Robinson v. State, 68 OBJ 1379 (Okl.Cr.1997).\n(v) Robinson v. State, 68 OBJ 1379, 1381 (Okl.Cr.1997).\n(d) Opinions of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued for publication shall be\npublished on the Court\xe2\x80\x99s World Wide Web site, www.occa.state.ok.us. Such opinions may\nnot be cited as authority in a subsequent appellate opinion nor used as authority by a trial\ncourt until the mandate in the matter has issued. After the mandate has issued, the opinion\nas published on the Web site shall constitute the official paragraph citation form of the\nOklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See Rule 1.0 (D) for citation to Rules.\n227\n\n\x0c(3) In all instances, an unpublished opinion is not binding on this Court. However, parties\nmay cite and bring to the Court\xe2\x80\x99s attention the unpublished opinions of this Court provided\ncounsel states that no published case would serve as well the purpose for which counsel cites\nit, and provided further that counsel shall provide opposing counsel and the Court with a copy\nof the unpublished opinion.\n(4) Citation to opinions of the United States Supreme Court shall include each of the\nfollowing: U.S., S.Ct., L.Ed. (year).\n(5) Citation to Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions - Criminal (Second) shall be as follows:\nInstruction No. ____, OUJI-CR(2d); and citation to revised instructions shall be noted with\nthe addition of (Supp. _____) (Year).\n(6) Failure to present relevant authority in compliance with these requirements will result in\nthe issue being forfeited on appeal. See Stafford v. State, 800 P.2d 738 , 741 (Okl.Cr.1990);\nWalton v. State, 744 P.2d 977 , 979 (Okl.Cr.1987); S.R.S. v. State, 728 P.2d 515 , 518\n(Okl.Cr.1986).\n\nOregon: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Coats v. State, 334 Or. 587, 54 P.3d 610 (2002)\n....\nThe Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) had promulgated administrative rules\nconstruing ORS 279.350(1) to apply to all workers at the "site of work." See OAR 839-0160004(19). Plaintiff and ODOT agreed to incorporate those rules as terms of their contract. As\nexplained below, central to the parties\' contract dispute in this case are two subsections of a\nBOLI rule that identified the circumstances under which rock quarries, or so-called "borrow\npits," would be considered part of the "site of work."\n....\nThe state moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Alto v.\nState Fire Marshall, 319 Or 382, 876 P2d 774 (1994), for the proposition that a circuit court\nlacks jurisdiction to review the validity of agency rules in the context of a declaratory\njudgment action. While that motion was pending, ODOT withheld payments on the contract.\nPlaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which he alleged that he had complied with the\nterms of the contract, including the prevailing wage rules, and that ODOT\'s decision to\nwithhold payments was a breach of the parties\' contract. In addition, because ODOT\'s\ndecision was based on a determination that plaintiff had failed to comply with the prevailing\nwage rules, plaintiff argued that the circuit court had acquired subject matter jurisdiction to\nreview the validity of those rules under this court\'s decision in Hay v. Oregon Dep\'t of\nTransportation, 301 Or 129, 719 P2d 860 (1986). ODOT counterclaimed for breach of\ncontract, and both parties then moved for summary judgment.\n228\n\n\x0c....\n\nOr. R. App. P. 5.20, 5.35,\nhttp://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/RULE211.pdf.\nRule 5.20 REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITS; CITATION OF\nAUTHORITIES\n....\n(4) Guidelines for style and conventions in citation of authorities may be found in the Oregon\nAppellate Courts Style Manual.\n(5) Cases affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals should not be cited as authority.\nRule 5.35 APPELLANT\'S BRIEF: INDEX\nThe appellant\'s combined brief and excerpt shall begin with:\n....\n(3) an index of all authorities referred to, classified by cases (alphabetically arranged and with\ncomplete citations), constitutional and statutory provisions, texts, treatises, and other\nauthorities, and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited. Citations are\nto be in the form prescribed by the Oregon Appellate Courts Style Manual. Reference to\n"passim\'\' or \'\'et seq.\'\' in the index of authorities is discouraged.\n\nNote: The Oregon Appellate Courts Style Manual (2002),\nhttp://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/UpdatedStyleManual2002.pdf, lays out\ndistinctive citation conventions for a full range of legal authority.\n\nPennsylvania: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < |\n\n>\n\nExamples from Commonwealth v. Beam, 567 Pa. 492, 788 A.2d 357 (2002)\n....\nFollowing a hearing, the common pleas court denied the request for preliminary injunction\nand, on Beam\'s motion, granted summary judgment in his favor and dismissed the\nDepartment\'s complaint. The Department appealed, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.\nSee Commonwealth, Dep\'t of Transp. v. Beam, 756 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). In their\n229\n\n\x0creasoning, the reviewing courts focused on the Department\'s capacity to seek injunctive relief\nin a judicial forum. While recognizing that the Department\'s enumerated powers included the\nauthority to issue airport licenses, see 74 Pa.C.S. \xc2\xa7 5301(b)(1), and that its regulations\nestablish procedures for license revocation and suspension, see 67 Pa. Code \xc2\xa7 471.3(g), the\ncourts nevertheless found no statute or regulation conferring authority to commence a civil\naction. Stressing the precept that an agency charged with the administration of a statute can\nact only within the strict confines of that statute, and therefore can seek to enforce compliance\nonly with specific legislative authorization, the Commonwealth Court and the common pleas\ncourt concluded that the Department bore airport licensing enforcement responsibility but\npresently lacked the means by which to compel compliance. See 756 A.2d at 1181-82. We\nallowed appeal to consider this conclusion.\n....\nThis Court has long adhered to the precept that the power and authority exercised by\nadministrative agencies must be conferred by legislative language that is clear and\nunmistakable. See United Artists\' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Phila., 535 Pa. 370, 389, 635\nA.2d 612, 622 (1993) ("A doubtful power does not exist." (citations omitted));\nCommonwealth, Dep\'t of Envtl. Resources v. Butler County Mushroom Farm, 499 Pa. 509,\n513, 454 A.2d 1, 3 (1982). At the same time, we recognize that the General Assembly has\nprescribed that legislative enactments are generally to be construed in such a manner as to\neffect their objects and promote justice, see 1 Pa.C.S. \xc2\xa7 1928(c), and, in assessing a statute,\ncourts are directed to consider the consequences of a particular interpretation, as well as other\nfactors enumerated in the Statutory Construction Act. See Butler County Mushroom Farm,\n499 Pa. at 516-17, 454 A.2d at 5-6 (citing 1 Pa.C.S. \xc2\xa7 1921(a))(observing that "statutory\nconstruction is not an exercise to be undertaken without considerations of practicality, precept\nand experience[, "as ignoring such considerations may result in a forced and narrow\ninterpretation that does not comport with legislative intent). Based upon such considerations,\nthe rule requiring express legislative delegation is tempered by the recognition that an\nadministrative agency is invested with the implied authority necessary to the effectuation of\nits express mandates. See Butler County Mushroom Farm, 499 Pa. at 513, 454 A.2d at 4;\nPennsylvania Human Relations Com. v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., Zinc Smelting Div., 476 Pa.\n302, 310, 382 A.2d 731, 736; Day v. Public Service Comm\'n (Yellow Cab Co.), 312 Pa. 381,\n384, 167 A. 565, 566 (1933).\n....\nPa. R. App. P. 2119(b),\nhttp://www.pacode.com/secure/data/210/chapter21/s2119.html.\n(b) Citations of authorities.\nCitations of authorities must set forth the principle for which they are cited. Citations of\nuncodified statutes shall make reference to the book and page of the Laws of Pennsylvania\n(Pamphlet Laws) or other official edition, and also to a standard digest, where the statutes\nmay be found. Citations of provisions of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes may be in\nthe form: \xe2\x80\x9c1 Pa.C.S. \xc2\xa7 1928 (rule of strict and liberal construction)\xe2\x80\x9d and the official\ncodifications of other jurisdictions may be cited similarly. Quotations from authorities or\n230\n\n\x0cstatutes shall also set forth the pages from which they are taken. Opinions of an appellate\ncourt of this or another jurisdiction shall be cited from the National Reporter System, if\npublished therein, and to the official reports of Pennsylvania appellate courts, if published\ntherein.\n\nRhode Island: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < |\n\n>\n\nExamples from Cullen v. Town Council of Lincoln, 893 A.2d 239 (R.I. 2006)\n....\nThere can be no doubt that the town\'s ability to adopt ordinances that govern the construction\nand regulation of a public sewer system is both provided for by law, P.L. 1984, ch. 270, and\nfalls squarely within the municipal police power, see Mill Realty Associates v. Crowe, 841\nA.2d 668, 674 (R.I. 2004) ("maintaining a public water supply and requiring that builders\nconstruct extensions to the town\'s public water system falls squarely within [a municipality\'s]\npolice power"); Munroe v. Town of East Greenwich, 733 A.2d 703, 710 (R.I. 1999) ("zoning,\nland development and subdivision regulations constitute a valid exercise of [a municipality\'s]\npolice power"). Proper exercise of this police power is accomplished exclusively by enacting\nmunicipal ordinances; however, a town council has discretion to impose requirements\nadditional to an ordinance when provided for in the ordinance itself.\n....\nWe think that this case does not warrant excepting petitioners from the ordinary requirement\nthat they make at least one meaningful application to a state agency before seeking a remedy\nin the courts by pleading futility. First, the council was presented with evidence that DEM\nmight not be so quick to deny petitioners\' application. In addition, petitioners\' self-serving\nconclusion that traversing designated wetlands would present as grave a danger as their\nproposed pump station route is ultimately only meaningless speculation since DEM is the\nagency vested with the exclusive power to make precisely this determination. See generally\nG.L. 1956 \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 2-1-18 through 2-1-24. Furthermore, while DEM\'s regulations may require it to\ndeny a particular tie-in route if an alternate is available which does not traverse a designated\narea, see Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration and Enforcement of the\nFreshwater Wetlands Act, Department of Environmental Management, 12 Code R.I. Reg.\n190-25-9.05(E)(2)(b) (2001), it is unclear what DEM would do if the pump station route is no\nlonger available due to the council\'s denial of petitioners\' application.\n....\nR.I. Sup. Ct. R. 16(j),\nhttp://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/Supreme%20Court%20Rules/Su\npreme-Rules-Article1.pdf.\n\n231\n\n\x0c(j) Unpublished orders. Unpublished orders will not be cited by the Court in its opinions and\nsuch orders will not be cited by counsel in their briefs. Unpublished orders shall have no\nprecedential effect.\n\nSouth Carolina: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help |\n\n<|>\n\nExamples from Johnson v. Collins Entm\'t Co., 349 S.C. 613, 564 S.E.2d 653\n(2002)\n....\nThe defendants argue plaintiffs cannot rely on S.C. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 12-21-2804(B) as a\n"predicate act" for their RICO claim because in Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. v. South\nCarolina Dep\'t of Revenue, 342 S.C. 34, 535 S.E.2d 642 (2000), this Court declared all of\nsection 12-21-2804(B) unconstitutional. We disagree. In Video Gaming, we limited our\nholding to the first clause of section 12-21-2804(B).\n....\n"When the issue is the constitutionality of a statute, every presumption will be made in favor\nof its validity and no statute will be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity appears so\nclearly as to leave no doubt that it conflicts with the constitution." State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48,\n58, 543 S.E.2d 541, 546 (2001) (citations omitted). This general presumption of validity can\nbe overcome only by a clear showing the act violates some provision of the constitution. Main\nv. Thomason, 342 S.C. 79, 535 S.E.2d 918 (2000); State v. Brown, 317 S.C. 55, 451 S.E.2d\n888 (1994); see also Westvaco Corp. v. South Carolina Dep\'t of Revenue, 321 S.C. 59, 467\nS.E.2d 739 (1995).\n....\nThe Court of Appeals correctly ruled on this issue in Justice v. Pantry, 330 S.C. 37, 496\nS.E.2d 871 (Ct. App. 1998), aff\'d as modified, 335 S.C. 572, 518 S.E.2d 40 (1999).\n....\nFurthermore, although the statute itself does not define "special inducement," the regulations\nof DOR do clarify the term. 27 S.C. Code Reg. 117-190.1 provides:\nAny attempt to influence a person to play video game machines is an inducement and is\nstrictly prohibited by the statute. A location will be subject to the various civil or criminal\npenalties imposed by the statute for offering any of the following inducements . . . .\n\n232\n\n\x0cS.C. App. Pract. R. 268,\nhttp://www.sccourts.org/courtReg/displayRule.cfm?ruleID=268.0&subRuleID=&\nruleType=APP.\nCITATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA AUTHORITY\nTo provide guidance on citing South Carolina authority, the following forms of citation are\ngiven. Once cited in the form given, the authority may thereafter be cited in an abbreviated\nform. Additional guidance on citation of authority may be found in A Uniform System of\nCitation published by the Harvard Law Review Association, A Guide to South Carolina Legal\nResearch and Citation published by the S.C. Bar C.L.E. Division, or other publications.\n(a) South Carolina Constitution. The South Carolina Constitution should be cited in the\nfollowing manner: S.C. Const. art. IV, \xc2\xa7 4.\n(b) Statutes and Regulations.\n(1) Statutes which appear in a hardbound volume of the Code of Laws of South Carolina\nshould be cited in the following form: S.C. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 1-2-345 (1976). Where the statute\nappears in a replacement hardbound volume, the citation should include the date appearing\non the spine of the volume or the copyright date of the volume in the following form: S.C.\nCode Ann. \xc2\xa7 11-35-1210 (1986). Statutes which appear in the supplement to the Code of\nLaws of South Carolina should be cited in the following form: S.C. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 6-7-890\n(Supp. 1988).\n(2) Statutes which have not yet been codified should be cited by the number of the Act, and\nthe year and page number where it appears in the South Carolina Acts and Joint\nResolutions in the following form: Act No. 100, 1985 S.C. Acts 277.\n(3) Regulations which appear in the Code of Laws of South Carolina should be cited in the\nfollowing manner: 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 19-501 (1976). Regulations which appear in\nthe supplement to the Code of Laws of South Carolina should be cited in the following\nmanner: 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-40 (Supp. 1988). The date used in the citation shall\nbe the latest copyright date of the volume or supplement.\n(c) Court Rules. Court rules should be cited by the rule number and the abbreviations shown:\n(1) South Carolina Appellate Court Rules: Rule ___, SCACR.\n(a) Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule ___, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR.\n(b) Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule ___, RLDE, Rule 413 SCACR.\n(c) Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule ___, CJC, Rule 501, SCACR.\n(d) Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule ___, RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR.\n(2) South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule ___, SCRCP.\n233\n\n\x0c(3) South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule ___, SCRCrimP.\n(4) South Carolina Rules of Family Court: Rule ___, SCRFC.\n(5) South Carolina Rules of Probate Court: Rule ___, SCRPC.\n(6) South Carolina Rules of Magistrates Court: Rule ___, SCRMC.\n(7) South Carolina Rules of Evidence: Rule ___, SCRE.\n(d) Appellate Court Decisions.\n(1) Published opinions or orders of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals should be cited\nin the following manner: State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 404, 377 S.E.2d 309 (1989); Andrews\nv. Piedmont Air Lines, 297 S.C. 367, 377 S.E.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1989). If a published\nopinion does not appear in a reporter, it should be cited in the following manner: Donahue\nv. Donahue, Op. No. 23083 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Sept. 25, 1989); Satcher v. Berry, Op. No.\n1383 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 31, 1989). Further, if the opinion has been published in the\nAdvance Sheets published by the Supreme Court, the opinion should be cited in the\nfollowing manner: State v. Victor, Op. No. 23118 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Dec. 11, 1989)\n(Davis Adv. Sh. No. 29 at 5). If a published order does not appear in a reporter, it should be\ncited by its order number: State v. Smith, 89-OR-25 (S.C. Ct. App. dated March 1, 1989), or\nby reference to the date of the order if no order number has been assigned: State v. Smith,\nS.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated March 1, 1989. Further, if the order has been published on the\nfront of the Advance Sheets the order should be cited in the following manner: State v.\nFoster, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated June 9, 1989 (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 14).\n(2) Memorandum opinions and unpublished orders have no precedential value and should\nnot be cited except in proceedings in which they are directly involved. Memorandum\nopinions may be cited in the following form: Burns v. Burns, Op. No. 89-MO-110 (S.C. Ct.\nApp. filed July 31, 1989). Unpublished orders may be cited in a similar manner as provided\nfor published orders under Rule 239(d)(1).\n(3) The South Carolina Equity Reports, beginning with 1 Desaussure Equity and ending\nwith 14 Richardson Equity should be cited in the following manner: Taylor v. Taylor, 4\nS.C.Eq. (4 Des. Eq.) 165 (1811). The following table of cross references is provided:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nReporter\no Citation to be Used\n1 Desaussure\no 1 S.C. Eq. (1 Des. Eq.)\n2 Desaussure\no 2 S.C. Eq. (2 Des. Eq.)\n3 Desaussure\no 3 S.C. Eq. (3 Des. Eq.)\n4 Desaussure\no 4 S.C. Eq. (4 Des. Eq.)\nHarper\n234\n\n\x0c5 S.C. Eq. (Harp. Eq.)\n1 McCord\no 6 S.C. Eq. (1 McCord Eq.)\n2 McCord\no 7 S.C. Eq. (2 McCord Eq.)\nBailey\no 8 S.C. Eq. (Bail. Eq.)\nRichardson\'s Cases\no 9 S.C. Eq. (Rich. Cas.)\n1 Hill\no 10 S.C. Eq. (1 Hill Eq.)\n2 Hill\no 11 S.C. Eq. (2 Hill Eq.)\nRiley\no 12 S.C. Eq. (Ril. Eq.)\nDudley\no 13 S.C. Eq. (Dud. Eq.)\nRice\no 14 S.C. Eq. (Rice Eq.)\nCheves\no 15 S.C. Eq. (Chev. Eq.)\nMcMullen\no 16 S.C. Eq. (McMul. Eq.)\nSpeers\no 17 S.C. Eq. (Speers Eq.)\n1 Richardson\no 18 S.C. Eq. (1 Rich. Eq.)\n2 Richardson\no 19 S.C. Eq. (2 Rich. Eq.)\n1 Strobhart\no 20 S.C. Eq. (1 Strob. Eq.)\n2 Strobhart\no 21 S.C. Eq. (2 Strob. Eq.)\n3 Strobhart\no 22 S.C. Eq. (3 Strob. Eq.)\n4 Strobhart\no 23 S.C. Eq. (4 Strob. Eq.)\n3 Richardson\no 24 S.C.Eq. (3 Rich.Eq.)\n4 Richardson\no 25 S.C.Eq. (4 Rich.Eq.)\n5 Richardson\no 26 S.C.Eq. (5 Rich.Eq.)\n6 Richardson\no 27 S.C.Eq. (6 Rich.Eq.)\n7 Richardson\no 28 S.C.Eq. (7 Rich.Eq.)\n8 Richardson\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n235\n\n\x0c29 S.C.Eq. (8 Rich.Eq.)\n9 Richardson\no 30 S.C.Eq. (9 Rich.Eq.)\n10 Richardson\no 31 S.C.Eq. (10 Rich.Eq.)\n11 Richardson\no 32 S.C.Eq. (11 Rich.Eq.)\n12 Richardson\no 33 S.C.Eq. (12 Rich.Eq.)\n13 Richardson\no 34 S.C.Eq. (13 Rich.Eq.)\n14 Richardson\no 35 S.C.Eq. (14 Rich.Eq.)\no\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n(4) The South Carolina Law Reports beginning with 1 Bay and ending with 15 Richardson\nshould be cited in the following manner: Roche v. Chaplin, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bail.) 419 (1830).\nThe following table of cross references is provided:\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\nReporter\no Citation to be Used\n1 Bay\no 1 S.C.L. (1 Bay)\n2 Bay\no 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay)\n1 Brevard\no 3 S.C.L. (1 Brev.)\n2 Brevard\no 4 S.C.L. (2 Brev.)\n2 Brevard\no 5 S.C.L. (3 Brev.)\n1 Treadway\no 6 S.C.L. (1 Tread.)\n2 Treadway\no 7 S.C.L. (2 Tread.)\n1 Mill (Constitutional)\no 8 S.C.L. (1 Mill)\n2 Mill (Constitutional)\no 9 S.C.L. (2 Mill)\n1 Nott and McCord\no 10 S.C.L. (1 Nott & McC.)\n2 Nott and McCord\no 11 S.C.L. (2 Nott & McC.)\n1 McCord\no 12 S.C.L. (1 McCord)\n2 McCord\no 13 S.C.L. (2 McCord)\n3 McCord\no 14 S.C.L. (3 McCord)\n236\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n4 McCord\no 15 S.C.L. (4 McCord)\nHarper\no 16 S.C.L. (Harp.)\n1 Bailey\no 17 S.C.L. (1 Bail.)\n2 Bailey\no 18 S.C.L. (2 Bail.)\n1 Hill\no 19 S.C.L. (1 Hill)\n2 Hill\no 20 S.C.L. (2 Hill)\n3 Hill\no 21 S.C.L. (3 Hill)\nRiley\no 22 S.C.L. (Ril.)\nDudley\no 23 S.C.L. (Dud.)\nRice\no 24 S.C.L. (Rice)\nCheves\no 25 S.C.L. (Chev.)\n1 McMullen\no 26 S.C.L. (1 McMul.)\n2 McMullen\no 27 S.C.L. (2 McMul.)\n1 Speers\no 28 S.C.L. (1 Speers)\n2 Speers\no 29 S.C.L. (2 Speers)\n1 Richardson\no 30 S.C.L. (1 Rich.)\n2 Richardson\no 31 S.C.L. (2 Rich.)\n1 Strobhart\no 32 S.C.L. (1 Strob.)\n2 Strobhart\no 33 S.C.L. (2 Strob.)\n3 Strobhart\no 34 S.C.L. (3 Strob.)\n4 Strobhart\no 35 S.C.L. (4 Strob.)\n5 Strobhart\no 36 S.C.L. (5 Strob.)\n3 Richardson\no 37 S.C.L. (3 Rich.)\n4 Richardson\no 38 S.C.L. (4 Rich.)\n237\n\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\xe2\x80\xa2\n\n5 Richardson\no 39 S.C.L. (5 Rich.)\n6 Richardson\no 40 S.C.L. (6 Rich.)\n7 Richardson\no 41 S.C.L. (7 Rich.)\n8 Richardson\no 42 S.C.L. (8 Rich.)\n9 Richardson\no 43 S.C.L. (9 Rich.)\n10 Richardson\no 44 S.C.L. (10 Rich.)\n11 Richardson\no 45 S.C.L. (11 Rich.)\n12 Richardson\no 46 S.C.L. (12 Rich.)\n13 Richardson\no 47 S.C.L. (13 Rich.)\n14 Richardson\no 48 S.C.L. (14 Rich.)\n15 Richardson\no 49 S.C.L. (15 Rich.)\n\nSouth Dakota: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < |\n\n>\n\nExamples from State v. Britton, 2009 SD 75, 772 N.W.2d 899\n....\n[\xc2\xb6 4.] In recent years, federal and state courts have grappled with many contentious South\nDakota cases dealing with the challenged use and reliability of drug detection dogs. See, e.g.,\nChavez v. Weber, 497 F.3d 796 (8th Cir.2007); United States v. Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d\n505 (8th Cir. 2007); State v. Bergee, 2008 SD 67, 753 N.W.2d 911; State v. Nguyen, 2007 SD\n4, 726 N.W.2d 871; State v. Lockstedt, 2005 SD 47, 695 N.W.2d 718; State v. Mattson, 2005\nSD 71, 698 N.W.2d 538; State v. Chavez, 2003 SD 93, 668 N.W.2d 89; State v. DeLaRosa,\n2003 SD 18, 657 N.W.2d 683; State v. Ballard, 2000 SD 134, 617 N.W.2d 837; State v.\nHanson, 1999 SD 9, 588 N.W.2d 885. At the heart of many of these cases is the question of\nthe competence and reliability of the drug dog and its handler.\n[\xc2\xb6 5.] In 2004, perhaps in response to these continuing questions, the South Dakota\nLegislature supervened with a statute requiring mandatory certification. "Each law\nenforcement canine team in the state shall be initially certified and annually recertified in one\nor more of the following specialties: ... The detection of the odors of drugs and controlled\nsubstances[.]" DCL 23-3-35.4(1) (emphasis added). As part of the certification process, the\nLegislature imposed on the Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training Commission\n238\n\n\x0cthe mandatory duty to "establish standards and criteria for canine certification and\nrecertification." SDCL 23-3-35.5. In June 2005, the Commission adopted standards and\ncriteria for police canine certification. ARSD 2:01:13:01 et seq. These standards prohibit a\n"state, county, or municipal agency, and [a] state, county, or municipal law enforcement\nagency or [a] law enforcement officer" from using a canine to assist in drug detection, "unless\nthe canine and its handler are certified by the commission as a canine team." ARSD\n2:01:13:02. Certification by the Commission expires one year from the date of issuance unless\nthe canine team renews its certificate. ARSD 2:01:13:04.\n....\nS.D. R. Civ. App. P. \xc2\xa7 15-26A-69.1,\nhttp://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=1526A-69.1.\n(1) The initial citation of any published opinion of the Supreme Court released prior to\nJanuary 1, 1996, in a brief, memorandum, or other document filed with the Court and the\ncitation in the table of cases in a brief shall include a reference to the volume and page\nnumber of the South Dakota Reports or North Western Reporter in which the opinion is\npublished. Subsequent citations within the brief, document, or memorandum shall include the\npage number and sufficient references to identify the initial citation.\n(2) The initial citation of any published opinion of the Supreme Court released on or after\nJanuary 1, 1996, in a brief, memorandum, or other document filed with the Court and the\ncitation in the table of cases in a brief shall include a reference to the calendar year in which\nthe decision was announced, the Court designation of "S.D.", and a sequential number\nassigned by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Citation to specific portions of the opinion shall\nbe made to the paragraph number assigned by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. A paragraph\ncitation should be placed immediately following the sequential number assigned to the case.\nSubsequent citations within the brief, document, or memorandum shall include the paragraph\nnumber and sufficient references to identify the initial citation.\nWhen available, initial citations shall include the volume and initial page number of the North\nWestern Reporter in which the opinion is published.\n\nTennessee: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114\n(Tenn. 2013)\n....\nThe trial court granted Employee\'s petition to set aside the settlement, citing two distinct\nrationales. First, the trial court premised relief on its holding that "Mr. Furlough did not\nreceive substantial benefits provided by the workers\' compensation laws." See Tenn. Code\nAnn. \xc2\xa7 50-6-206(c)(1)(B) (2008 & Supp. 2012). Second, the trial court held that because\n239\n\n\x0cEmployee was "not represented" by counsel, the settlement should have been court approved,\nsee Tenn. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 50-6-206(c)(3)(B), and Employee thoroughly informed as to the\nbenefits available under the workers\' compensation law, see Tenn. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 50-6206(c)(1)(B). The trial court determined that "Approving Specialist Jim McGraft [sic] did not\ngo over with Mr. Furlough any information in the settlement statement itself."\n....\nThe Special Workers\' Compensation Appeals Panel did not reach the merits of this dispute;\ninstead, the Panel dismissed the appeal and vacated the trial court\'s judgment on a procedural\nissue not raised by the parties: "A settlement approved by the department shall not become\nfinal until the statistical data form required by this section is fully completed and received by\nthe department." Tenn. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 50-6-244(d) (2008 & Supp. 2012). The "statistical data\nform required by this section" is known as the "Form SD-1" or "SD-1 form." Corum v.\nHolston Health & Rehab. Ctr., 104 S.W.3d 451, 452 (Tenn. 2003). The Panel found that\n"many parts of the form were left blank" and held that "the proposed settlement did not\nbecome final" due to the "clear and unambiguous" language of section 50-6-244(d). While\nrecognizing that the benefit review conference process is exhausted upon the "[r]eaching of a\nmediated settlement, as evidenced by a signed document executed by the proper parties,"\nTenn. Comp. R. & Reg. 0800-2-5-.09(1)(b) (2008), the Panel nonetheless held that the parties\nhad failed to exhaust the benefit review conference process. . . .\n....\nWhether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case is a question of law that we\nreview de novo with no presumption of correctness. Word v. Metro Air Servs., Inc., 377\nS.W.3d 671, 674 (Tenn. 2012). This appeal also involves an issue of statutory construction,\nwhich we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc., 360\nS.W.3d 362, 366 (Tenn. 2012). On the other hand, we review the trial court\'s factual findings\n"de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of\nthe finding[s], unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise." Tenn. Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 506-225(e)(2).\n....\nTenn. R. App. P. 27(h), http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/rules/rules-appellateprocedure/27.\nRule 27. Content of Briefs.\n....\n(h) Citation of Authorities.\nCitation of cases must be by title, to the page of the volume where the case begins, and to the\npages upon which the pertinent matter appears in at least one of the reporters cited. It is not\nsufficient to use only supra or infra without referring to the page of the brief at which the\ncomplete citation may be found. Citation of Tennessee cases may be to the official or South\n240\n\n\x0cWestern Reporter or both. Citation of cases from other jurisdictions must be to the National\nReporter System or both the official state reports and National Reporter System. If only the\nNational Reporter System citation is used, the court rendering the decision must also be\nidentified. All citations to cases shall include the year of decision. Citation of textbooks shall\nbe to the section, if any, and page upon which the pertinent matter appears and shall include\nthe year of publication and edition if not the first edition. Tennessee statutes shall generally be\ncited to the Tennessee Code Annotated, Official Edition, but citations to the session laws of\nTennessee shall be made when appropriate. Citations of supplements to the Tennessee Code\nAnnotated shall so indicate and shall include the year of publication of the supplement.\n\nTexas: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Gilbert v. El Paso County Hosp. Dist., 38 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. 2001)\n....\nThe Texas Constitution and the Texas Tax Code contain truth-in-taxation provisions that\nrequire local government units to tell their taxpayers each year how the next year\'s property\ntax rates will compare with the current year\'s. See TEX. CONST. art. VIII, \xc2\xa7 21; TEX. TAX\nCODE \xc2\xa7 26.04. As part of this taxpayer notice, taxing units must show how much money, if\nany, they estimate that they will have left over from previous years\' maintenance and\noperations and debt service funds. See TEX. TAX CODE \xc2\xa7 26.04(e)(2). We must decide\nwhether this disclosure requirement covers only property taxes left over in these funds, or\nwhether it also covers revenues accumulated from other sources.\n....\nThe El Paso Hospital District operates R.E. Thomason General Hospital in El Paso.\nConstitutionally and by statute, the District has "full responsibility for furnishing medical and\nhospital care for indigent and needy persons residing in the district." TEX. HEALTH &\nSAFETY CODE \xc2\xa7 281.046; see also TEX. CONST. art. IX, \xc2\xa7 4. To discharge this\nresponsibility and to perform its other functions, the District is authorized to assess a tax on\nproperty in the District. See TEX. CONST. art. IX, \xc2\xa7 4. In addition to property taxes, the\nDistrict receives money from paying patients, its cafeteria, and Medicaid.\nThe District participates in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Program, which provides\nextra revenue to hospitals that serve a high proportion of indigent patients. See 1 TEX.\nADMIN. CODE \xc2\xa7 355.8065(a). This revenue is significant to the District; in 1997, the\nDistrict received almost as much in Disproportionate Share ("Dispro") Funds as it received in\nproperty taxes. n1 The District must use Dispro revenues to serve poor patients, but the parties\nagree that this requirement is the only relevant limit on the District\'s use of Dispro money.\n....\nThe Tax Code authorizes the taxing unit to adopt a rate for each fiscal year that is high\nenough to pay its debts and to meet its maintenance and operation needs. See id. \xc2\xa7 26.05(a).\n241\n\n\x0cDepending on the unit\'s debts, service plans, and accumulated surplus or deficit, this rate may\nbe lower than, higher than, or equal to the previous year\'s rate. See Texas Co. v. Panhandle\nIndep. Sch. Dist., 72 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1934, writ ref\'d) (holding\noverall tax levy, within statutory limits, to be a discretionary matter for the taxing authority).\nIf the unit wishes to adopt a rate higher than either the effective tax rate or the rollback tax\nrate, however, the taxing unit must hold a public hearing before adopting it. See TEX. TAX\nCODE \xc2\xa7 26.05(d). Moreover, in a special election after the taxing unit has adopted the annual\ntax rate, voters can cut taxes back to the rollback tax rate, perhaps forcing the taxing unit to\nalter its plans. See id. \xc2\xa7 26.07; Vinson v. Burgess, 773 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. 1989).\n....\nNote:\nWhile there is no required citation form statewide, one Texas appellate court requires citation\nin accordance with the Texas Rules of Form, published by the Texas Law Review, and others\nencourage its use.\n\nUtah: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, 150 P.3d 480\n....\n\xc2\xb619 . . . The current regulations contain a tiered system for the payment of attorney fees,\nwhich compensates counsel according to the procedural stage of the post-conviction\nproceedings reached. See Utah Admin. Code r. 25-14-4. Under this system, the maximum\namount of compensation an attorney may receive for representing a petitioner in a postconviction death penalty case is $ 37,500. Id. Under these rules, the Division of Finance will\nalso "pay reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed a total of $ 20,000 in any one case for\ncourt-approved investigators, expert witnesses, and consultants." Utah Admin. Code r. 25-145.\n....\n\xc2\xb648 On April 22, 2004, Menzies filed a notice of appeal with the district court indicating that\nhe would seek review of the court\'s denial of 60(b) relief as well as the order regarding the\ndestruction of the inadmissible documents. Menzies\' appeal is now before this court. We have\njurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. \xc2\xa7 78-2-2(3)(i) (2002).\n....\n\xc2\xb665 The first question we must consider is whether Menzies\' 60(b) motion was timely. A\nmotion under 60(b) must "be made within a reasonable time and for reason[] (1) . . . not more\nthan 3 months after the judgment . . . was entered." Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b). In cases where\nsubsection (b)(1) applies, a movant may not attempt to circumvent the three-month filing\n242\n\n\x0cperiod by relying on another subsection. Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Utah 1984);\nLaub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass\'n., 657 P.2d 1304, 1308 (Utah 1982); Richins v. Delbert\nChipman & Sons Co., 817 P.2d 382, 387 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). Under rule 60(b), a reasonable\ntime "depends upon the facts of each case, considering such factors as the interest in finality,\nthe reason for the delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds\nrelied upon, and prejudice to other parties." Gillmor v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah 1993)\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In general, the moving party satisfies the\nreasonable time requirement if she shows "that she acted diligently once the basis for relief\nbecame available, and that the delay in seeking relief did not cause undue hardship to the\nopposing party." Workman v. Nagle Constr., Inc., 802 P.2d 749, 752 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)\n(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\n....\n\xc2\xb668 The problem with the State\'s argument is that the State fails to distinguish between a\nmotion that is properly supported for purposes of the particularity requirement and a motion\nthat is timely filed for purposes of avoiding the limitations provisions of 60(b). Both rule 7\nand rule 4-501 are designed to "promote the policies of (1) mitigating prejudice to opposing\nparties by allowing that party to respond to the motion . . . and (2) assuring that a court can be\napprised of the basis of a motion and rule upon it with a proper understanding." See Holmes\nDev., LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38, \xc2\xb6 58, 48 P.3d 895 (discussing requirements for motions to\namend). If a party fails to "comply with Utah\'s formal motion practice rules," a district court\nmay, within its discretion, deny the motion on the grounds that it is insufficient. Id. \xc2\xb6 59.\nHowever, sufficiency is not a logically necessary component of timeliness. A party can timely\nmove the court for relief despite the fact that its motion may be insufficient because, for\nexample, it lacks particularity. In such a situation, the court has the discretion, consistent with\nthe policy concerns noted above, either to deny the motion as being insufficient or to allow\nthe party to supplement the originally insufficient motion. In the case before us, the district\ncourt chose the latter option, holding that Menzies\' 60(b) motion was timely filed and that\nMenzies should be allowed to supplement the motion under the circumstances. The district\ncourt was entirely within its discretion to do so.\n....\nUtah Sup. Ct. Standing Order 4,\nhttp://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/urap/Supctso.htm#4.\nEffective March 1, 2000, the initial citation of any published opinion of the Utah Supreme\nCourt or the Utah Court of Appeals, released on or after January 1, 1999, in any brief, table of\ncases in the brief, memorandum, or other document filed in the Utah Supreme Court or the\nUtah Court of Appeals, shall include the case name, the year the opinion was issued,\nidentification of the court that issued the opinion (UT for Utah Supreme Court and UT App\nfor the Utah Court of Appeals), and the sequential number assigned to the opinion by the\nrespective court. Citation to specific portions of the opinion shall be made by reference to the\nparagraph numbers assigned by the court. A comma and then a paragraph symbol (\xc2\xb6) should\nbe placed immediately following the sequential number assigned to the case. Subsequent\ncitations within the brief, document, or memorandum should include the paragraph number\nand sufficient references to identify the initial citation. Initial citations shall also include the\n243\n\n\x0cvolume and initial page number of the Pacific Reporter in which the opinion is published.\nWhen an opinion is in slip form awaiting inclusion in a Pacific Reporter volume, the slip\nopinion form should be used. A pinpoint citation is not required in the parallel citation to the\nPacific Reporter since the paragraph numbers assigned by the court are included in the Pacific\nReporter version. Likewise, it is not necessary to include the year the case was published\nsince that will be evident from the initial citation.\nExamples of an initial citation to a Utah Supreme Court opinion or a Utah Court of Appeals\nopinion issued on or after January 1, 1999, using fictitious decisions, would be as follows:\nBefore publication in Utah Advance Reports:\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16.\nBefore publication in Pacific Reporter but after publication in Utah Advance Reports:\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.\nAfter publication in Pacific Reporter:\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, 998 P.2d 250.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, 998 P.2d 250.\nExamples of a pinpoint citation to a Utah Supreme Court opinion or a Utah Court of Appeals\nopinion issued on or after January 1, 1999, would be as follows:\nBefore publication in Utah Advance Reports:\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, \xc2\xb621.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, \xc2\xb621.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb621-25.\nBefore publication in Pacific Reporter but after publication in Utah Advance Reports:\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, \xc2\xb621, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, \xc2\xb621, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 24.\n\n244\n\n\x0cAfter publication in Pacific Reporter:\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT 16, \xc2\xb621, 998 P.2d 250.\nSmith v. Jones, 1999 UT App 16, \xc2\xb621, 998 P.2d 250.\nIf the immediately preceding authority is a post-January 1, 1999, opinion, cite to the\nparagraph number:\nId. at \xc2\xb615.\n\nVermont: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from City of Montpelier v. Barnett, 2012 VT 32, 49 A.3d 120\n....\n\xc2\xb6 13. The validity of the City\'s ordinances is a question of law and therefore subject to de\nnovo review. See In re Vill. Assocs. Act 250 Land Use Permit, 2010 VT 42A, \xc2\xb6 7, 188 Vt.\n113, 998 A.2d 712. In addressing this question, however, we accept the trial court\'s findings\nof fact as long as they are supported by the evidence. See Whippie v. O\'Connor, 2010 VT 32,\n\xc2\xb6 12, 187 Vt. 523, 996 A.2d 1154.\n....\n\xc2\xb6 26. Although the 1926 prohibition has not been explicitly repealed, the entire statutory\nscheme that authorized the order has been eliminated. The 1926 order was made under the\nauthority of a law granting the Board of Health the authority to issue orders prohibiting\nactivities judged to potentially pollute a source of water. See 1917 G.L. \xc2\xa7 6313; see also\nQuattropani, 99 Vt. at 362, 133 A. at 353. The law at the time further provided that "[a]\nperson who violates a rule, regulation or order made under the provisions of this chapter shall\nbe imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than five hundred dollars." 1917 G.L.\n\xc2\xa7 6322. Subject to minor amendments and reorganization, these provisions continued largely\nintact until 1989. See 1947 V.S. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 7462-7475; 18 V.S.A. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1201-1214 (repealed 1989). In\nparticular, the law continued to recognize the authority of the Board of Health to issue orders\npertaining to public water supplies and continued to impose criminal penalties for the\nviolation of such orders. See 1947 V.S. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 7468, 7475; 18 V.S.A. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1207, 1214 (repealed\n1989). These provisions were repealed in 1989, when the basic source protection processes in\nexistence today were created \xe2\x80\x94 the only difference being that the authority that has been\nvested with ANR since 1991 was at that time vested with the Vermont Department of Health.\nSee 1989, No. 105, \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1, 5. Compare 18 V.S.A. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1231-1239 (repealed 1991), with 10\nV.S.A. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1671-1679. The 1989 law makes no reference to authority to issue orders nor does\nit impose penalties for violation of orders.\n....\n\n245\n\n\x0c\xc2\xb6 30. ANR did promulgate a new set of rules, known collectively as the Water Supply Rule.\nSee Water Supply Rule, 12 Code of Vt. Rules 12 030 003, available at\nhttp://www.michie.com/vermont. Section 16 sets forth the rules protecting public water\nsupplies from contamination. The central provision is that public water supplies are required\nto have a "source protection plan" approved by ANR, the purpose of which is to identify\npotential sources of contamination in a specific area, known as the "source protection area."\nSee id. \xc2\xa7 16.1. Both of these terms of art figure into the question of whether the State \xe2\x80\x94 in\nparticular ANR \xe2\x80\x94 has adopted the 1926 health order.\n....\nVt. R. App. P. 28.2, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/vtstatutesconstctrules.\nCITATIONS\n(a) Form of Opinions.\n(1) All opinions issued by the Supreme Court on or after January 1, 2003, will be sequentially\nnumbered within the year of issuance, beginning with the number "1".\n(2) Within each opinion, each paragraph will be numbered, beginning with the number "1".\n(3) Any official or unofficial publication of an opinion issued after January 1, 2003, must\ninclude the sequential number of the opinion in the caption of the opinion and the paragraph\nnumbers in the body of the text.\n(b) Citation of Vermont Opinions.\n(1) The citation of any opinion of the Vermont Supreme Court issued on or after January 1,\n2003, must, immediately after the title of the case:\n(A) indicate the year of issuance in four digits followed by the abbreviation "VT";\n(B) include the sequential opinion number; and\n(C) be followed by citations to the official and unofficial print reporters.\n(2) Pinpoint citations may be made only by reference to the paragraph numbers in the body of\nthe text. Citations must be made in the following style: Smith v. Jones, 2001 VT 1, \xc2\xb6 12, 169\nVt. 203, 850 A.2d 421.\n(c) Citation of Other Opinions. An opinion of any other court that has been published with\nsequential and paragraph numbering similar to that required by Rule 28.2(a) must be cited in a\nform similar to that provided in Rule 28.2(b).\n(d) Citation of Unpublished Judicial Dispositions Permitted.\n(1) A party may cite any unpublished judicial opinion, order, judgment, or other written\ndisposition notwithstanding that it may have been designated as "unpublished," "not\nprecedent," or the like.\n(2) If a party cites an unpublished judicial opinion, order, judgment, or other written\ndisposition, the party must file and serve a copy of that opinion, order, judgment, or\ndisposition with the brief or other paper in which it is cited.\n\n246\n\n\x0cVirginia: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Davenport v. Little-Bowser, 269 Va. 546, 611 S.E.2d 366 (2005)\n....\nIn its brief and in much of its oral argument, the Commonwealth argued that "this Court\nshould defer to the Executive Branch\'s interpretation unless that interpretation is patently\nunreasonable and represents an abuse of discretion" and that "it is well established that the\ninterpretation of the agency entrusted with the administration of a statute is entitled to\ndeference by this Court." In support of these contentions, the Commonwealth cites\nDepartment of Taxation v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 235 Va. 94, 366 S.E. 2d 78, 4 Va. Law\nRep. 2024 (1988); Forst v. Rockingham Poultry Mktg. Coop., 222 Va. 270, 279 S.E. 2d 400\n(1981); Commonwealth v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 217 Va. 121, 225 S.E. 2d 870 (1976);\nCommonwealth v. Bluefield Sanitarium, 216 Va. 686, 222 S.E. 2d 526 (1976); and\nCommonwealth v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 193 Va. 37, 68 S.E. 2d 122 (1951).\n....\nThe Commonwealth\'s first statutory interpretation argument involves 12 VAC \xc2\xa7 5-550-100\ninvolving a certificate of live birth and 12 VAC \xc2\xa7 5-550-330 concerning the issuance of a new\ncertificate after, among other circumstances, adoption. The Commonwealth reasons that a\ncertificate of live birth provides for listing of a mother and a father and a new certificate "shall\nbe on the form in use at the time of birth." 12 VAC \xc2\xa7 5-550-330. The Commonwealth argues\nthat Code \xc2\xa7 32.1-261(B) provides that "when a new certificate of birth is established pursuant\nto subsection A of this section ...it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth."\nBecause the statute requires "substitution" and the certificate of live birth provides for a\nlisting of a mother and a father, any new certificate "on the same form in use at the time of\nbirth" is inadequate to list two same-sex adoptive parents.\n....\nAdditionally, the Court of Appeals of Virginia has stated that\n"\'the interpretation which an administrative agency gives its [law] must be accorded great\ndeference. \' Virginia Real Estate Bd. v. Clay, 9 Va. App. 152, 159, 384 S.E. 2d 622, 626, 6\nVa. Law Rep. 663 (1989). \'The trial courts may reverse the administrative agency\'s\ninterpretation only if the agency\'s construction of its [law] is arbitrary or capricious or fails\nto fulfill the agency\'s purpose as defined by its basic law. \' Id. at 161, 384 S.E. 2d at 627."\nJackson v. W., 14 Va. App. 391, 400-401, 419 S.E. 2d 385, 390, 8 Va. Law Rep. 2880 (1992).\nApplying the well-established precedent of this Court and of the Court of Appeals, I would\naccord the Registrar\'s interpretation of Code \xc2\xa7 32.1-261 the deference to which it is entitled,\nand I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.\n....\n247\n\n\x0cVa. Sup. Ct. R 5:27(a), 5:28(a),\nhttp://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/rulesofcourt.pdf.\nOpening Brief of Appellant.\nThe opening brief of appellant shall contain:\n(a) A table of contents and table of authorities with cases alphabetically arranged. Citations of\nall authorities shall include the year thereof.\n\nNote: Similar rules apply to other filings with the court.\n\nWashington: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dep\'t of Revenue, 166 Wash. 2d 912, 215 P.3d\n185 (2009)\n\xc2\xb61 C. Johnson, J. - This case involves a challenge to the Department of Revenue\'s\n(Department) interpretation of RCW 82.04.423, which provides a tax exemption for certain\nout-of-state sellers. Until 2000, the Department treated Dot Foods, Inc. Click for Enhanced\nCoverage Linking Searches, an out-of-state seller, as exempt from Washington\'s business and\noccupation (B&O) tax. At all relevant times, Dot sold consumer and nonconsumer products\nthrough its direct seller\'s representative, Dot Transportation, Inc. (DTI), and some of the\nconsumer products ultimately ended up in permanent retail establishments. In 1999, in\namending WAC 458-20-246, the Department revised its interpretation of the qualifications\nneeded for the exemption. This revision changed the Department\'s prior interpretation, and\nunder the new interpretation, Dot no longer qualified for the exemption for any of its sales.\nDot filed suit challenging this interpretation, and the trial court entered summary judgment in\nfavor of the Department, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse.\n....\n\xc2\xb63 For many years, Dot received a B&O tax exemption for 100 percent of its sales pursuant to\nRCW 82.04.423, which exempts from the tax \xe2\x80\x9cgross income derived from the business of\nmaking sales at wholesale or retail\xe2\x80\x9d if the seller meets several criteria listed in the statute.\nRCW 82.04.423(1). Among these criteria, the out-of-state seller must \xe2\x80\x9c[m]ake[?] sales in this\nstate exclusively to or through a direct seller\'s representative.\xe2\x80\x9d RCW 82.04.423(1)(d). Under\nthe statute, a \xe2\x80\x9cdirect seller\'s representative\xe2\x80\x9d is one who buys, sells, or solicits the sale of\nconsumer products in places other than a permanent retail establishment. RCW 82.04.423(2).\nBetween 1997 and 2000, Dot received B&O tax-exempt status even though it sold both\nconsumer and nonconsumer products. Also, Dot received this tax exemption during this time\neven though some of the products purchased from Dot were later sold to permanent retail\nestablishments without Dot\'s or DTI\'s involvement.\n248\n\n\x0c....\n\xc2\xb614 The Department argues that its statutory interpretation is entitled to judicial deference.\nWhile we give great deference to how an agency interprets an ambiguous statute within its\narea of special expertise, \xe2\x80\x9csuch deference is not afforded when the statute in question is\nunambiguous.\xe2\x80\x9d Densley v. Dep\'t of Ret. Sys., 162 Wn.2d 210, 221, 173 P.3d 885 (2007). The\nDepartment\'s argument for deference is a difficult one to accept, considering the Department\'s\nhistory interpreting the exemption. Initially, and shortly after the statutory enactment, the\nDepartment adopted an interpretation which is at odds with its current interpretation. One\nwould think that the Department had some involvement or certainly awareness of the\nlegislature\'s plans to enact this type of statute. As a general rule, where a statute has been left\nunchanged by the legislature for a significant period of time, the more appropriate method to\nchange the interpretation or application of a statute is by amendment or revision of the statute,\nrather than a new agency interpretation.\n....\nWash. Gen. R. 14,\nhttp://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&set=GR&ruleid=\ngagr14.\n14. Format for Pleadings and Other Papers\n....\n(d) Citation Format. Citations shall conform with the format prescribed by the Reporter of\nDecisions. (See Appendix 1.)\nThe opening brief of appellant shall contain:\n(a) A table of contents and table of authorities with cases alphabetically arranged. Citations of\nall authorities shall include the year thereof.\n\nNote: While a prior rule more explicitly requiring that citations in a brief conform to the form\nused in the current volumes of the Washington Reports has been rescinded, the style sheet of\nthe state\'s Office of Reporter of Decisions, referred to above, continues to be a useful guide.\nThe Bluebook is largely incorporated by reference modified by a set of local abbreviations, in\nthe Appendix 1 to Rule 14(d),\nhttp://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/?fa=atc_supreme.style.\nA 2004 order of the Washington Supreme Court directs the publisher of Washington appellate\ndecisions to add paragraph numbers to them. Order No. 25700-B-447,\nhttp://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/?fa=atc_supreme.paraOrder. The\norder authorizes but does not require the use of those paragraph numbers for pinpoint\ncitations. "After an opinion is published in the official reports, a pinpoint citation should be\n249\n\n\x0cmade to page numbers in the official reports, to paragraph numbers from the official reports,\nor to both." Id.\n\nWest Virginia: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < |\n\n>\n\nExamples from Sedgmer v. McElroy Coal Co., 220 W.Va. 66, 640 S.E.2d 129\n(2006)\n....\nWe proceed, having held that "[a] circuit court\'s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de\nnovo." Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). Furthermore, we\nobserve that "[a] motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that\nthere is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to\nclarify the application of the law." Syl. Pt. 3, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of\nNew York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963); Syl. Pt. 1, Williams v. Precision Coil,\nInc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995). With these standards in mind, we turn to the case\nbefore us.\n....\nWest Virginia law expressly provides an exemption from employee civil liability claims for\nwork-related injuries to employers who are in good standing with the Workers\' Compensation\nlaws of the state W. Va. Code \xc2\xa7 23-2-6 (1991).\n....\nWhile Consolidation Coal was initially cited for a violation of 36 C.S.R. 33-4.1, the West\nVirginia Office of Miners\' Health, Safety & Training later reviewed the evidence. The Notice\nof Violation was subsequently vacated, with the Coal Mine Safety Board of Appeals noting\nthat, "[t]he evidence indicates that the cited regulation was not violated as alleged in the\nNotice of Violation."\n....\nW. Va. Tr. Ct. R. 6.02, http://www.courtswv.gov/legal-community/courtrules/trial-court/chapter-1.html.\n6.02 Citation Form\nCitations in motions and memoranda must be in a generally accepted citation form.\nNote:\n\n250\n\n\x0cCase holdings are generally cited to syllabus points in the format illustrated by the example\nabove.\n\nWisconsin: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from State v. T.J. Int\'l, Inc., 2001 WI 76, 244 Wis. 2d 481, 628 N.W.2d\n774\n....\n\xc2\xb64 We conclude that the definition of "business closing" in Wis. Stat. \xc2\xa7 109.07(1)(b) does not\ninclude the sale of business assets where there is no actual operational shutdown--permanent\nor temporary--of the employment site. Where, as here, the transfer of ownership continues\nrather than interrupts or ceases the operation of the employment site, there is no "business\nclosing" under the statute, and no 60-day notice of the sale is required. Accordingly, we\naffirm the court of appeals\' reversal of the judgment of the circuit court.\n....\n\xc2\xb618 The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the plain language of the statute\'s\ndefinition of "business closing" required a "permanent or temporary shutdown of an\nemployment site," and because the Hawkins plant never shut down, there was no "business\nclosing" within the meaning of the statute. State v. T.J. Int\'l, Inc., 2000 WI App 181, \xc2\xb610, 238\nWis. 2d 173, 617 N.W.2d 256. We accepted the State\'s petition for review.\n\xc2\xb619 We review a circuit court order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment\nindependently, using the same methodology as the circuit court. Jankee v. Clark County, 2000\nWI 64, \xc2\xb648, 235 Wis. 2d 700, 612 N.W.2d 297. Summary judgment is appropriate when there\nare no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment\nas a matter of law. Wis. Stat. \xc2\xa7 802.08(2).\n....\n\xc2\xb632 We note that Wis. Admin. Code \xc2\xa7 DWD 279.002 (Apr., 2001), entitled "Interpretation"\nspecifies that "whenever possible, this chapter will be interpreted in a manner consistent with\nthe Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 USC 2101 et seq., the\nfederal regulations and court decisions interpreting that Act to the extent that the provisions of\nfederal and state law are the same." Both defendants cite federal cases interpreting the WARN\nAct in support of their positions. We agree with the State that none of these cases is\nparticularly helpful to our analysis of the Wisconsin law.\n....\nWis. App. P. R. 809.19(e),\nhttp://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1987/statutes/statutes/809.pdf.\n251\n\n\x0c[The brief must contain:]\n(e) An argument, arranged in the order of the statement of issues presented. The argument on\neach issue must be preceded by a one sentence summary of the argument and is to contain the\ncontention of the appellant, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and\nparts of the record relied on as set forth in the Uniform System of Citation and SCR 80.02.\nWis. Sup. Ct. R. chapt. 80, http://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/sc_rules.jsp.\nSCR 80.001 Definition.\nIn this chapter, "public domain citation" means the calendar year in which an opinion, rule,\norder, or other item that is to be published is issued or ordered to be published, whichever is\nlater, followed by the designation of the court issuing the opinion, rule, order, or other item,\nfollowed by the sequential number assigned to the opinion, rule, order, or other item by the\nclerk of the court, in the following form:\n2000 WI 14\n2001 WI App 9\nSCR 80.01 Official publications.\n(1) The supreme court designates the Wisconsin Reports as published by Lawyers\nCooperative Publishing and the Wisconsin Reporter edition of the North Western Reporter\npublished by West Group as official publications of the opinions, rules, and orders of the\ncourt of appeals and the supreme court and other items designated by the supreme court. If\nany authorized agency of this state publishes the opinions, rules, orders, and other matters of\nthe court of appeals and the supreme court in a format approved by the supreme court after\nJanuary 1, 1979, that publication shall also be designated as an official publication.\n(2) The official publication of each opinion, rule, order, and other item of the supreme court\nissued on or after January 1, 2000, shall set forth the public domain citation of the opinion,\nrule, order, or other item and shall include the paragraph numbering of the opinion.\n(3) The official publication of each opinion, rule, order, and other item of the court of appeals\nordered to be published on or after January 1, 2000, shall set forth the public domain citation\nof the opinion, rule, order, or other item and shall include the paragraph numbering of the\nopinion.\nSCR 80.02 Proper citation.\n(1) The citation of any published opinion of the court of appeals or the supreme court in the\ntable of cases in a brief and the initial citation in a memorandum or other document filed with\nthe court of appeals or the supreme court shall include, in the order set forth, a reference to\neach of the following:\n(a) the public domain citation, if it exists;\n252\n\n\x0c(b) the volume and page number of the Wisconsin Reports in which the opinion is\npublished;\n(c) the volume and page number of the North Western Reporter in which the opinion is\npublished;\n(2) Subsequent citations shall include at least one of the references in sub. (1) and shall be\ninternally consistent.\n(3)\n(a) Citation to specific portions of an opinion issued or ordered to be published prior to\nJanuary 1, 2000, shall be by reference to page numbers, in the following form:\nSmith v. Jones, 214 Wis. 2d 408, 412.\nDoe v. Roe, 595 N.W.2d 346, 352.\n(b) Citation to specific portions of an opinion issued on or after January 1, 2000, shall be by\nreference to paragraph numbers, in the following form:\nSmith v. Jones, 2000 WI 14, \xc2\xb66\nSmith v. Jones, 214 Wis. 2d 408, \xc2\xb612\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WI App 9, \xc2\xb617\nDoe v. Roe, 595 N.W.2d 346, \xc2\xb627\n(c) Citation to specific portions of an opinion issued prior to January 1, 2000, and ordered\nto be published after January 1, 2000, shall be by reference to paragraph numbers if they\nexist or to page numbers if paragraph numbers do not exist.\n\nWyoming: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)\n\nContents | Index | Help | < | >\n\nExamples from Lane-Walter v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers\' Safety & Comp. Div.,\n2011 WY 52, 250 P.3d 513\n....\n[\xc2\xb6 16] We apply the standard of review we articulated in Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008\nWY 84, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 22-24, 188 P.3d 554, 561 (Wyo. 2008). . . .\n....\n[\xc2\xb6 19] The burden of proof that the Medical Commission appears to have attempted to place\non Lane-Walter is that which the Division claims to arise from Wyo. Stat. Ann. \xc2\xa7 27-14102(a)(xii) (LexisNexis 2009) (emphasis added):\n\n253\n\n\x0c(xii) "Medical and hospital care" when provided by a health care provider means\nany reasonable and necessary first aid, medical, surgical or hospital service,\nmedical and surgical supplies, apparatus, essential and adequate artificial\nreplacement, body aid during impairment, disability or treatment of an employee\npursuant to this act including the repair or replacement of any preexisting artificial\nreplacement, hearing aid, prescription eyeglass lens, eyeglass frame, contact lens or\ndentures if the device is damaged or destroyed in an accident and any other health\nservices or products authorized by rules and regulations of the division. "Medical\nand hospital care" does not include any personal item, automobile or the\nremodeling of an automobile or other physical structure, public or private health\nclub, weight loss center or aid, experimental medical or surgical procedure, item of\nfurniture or vitamin and food supplement except as provided under rule and\nregulation of the division and paragraph (a)(i) of this section for impairments or\ndisabilities requiring the use of wheelchairs[.]\n3 Weil\'s Code of Wyoming Rules, Department of Employment, Workers\' Compensation\nRules, Regulations and Fee Schedules, 025 0220 001-1 through 025 0220 001-21 flesh out\nhow the Division views the above language. For instance, ch. 1, \xc2\xa7 4(al), 025 0220 001-5\n(Sept. 2008) (emphasis added), provides: "Medically Necessary. `Medically necessary\ntreatment\' means those health services for a compensable injury that are reasonable and\nnecessary for the diagnosis and cure or significant relief of a condition consistent with any\napplicable treatment parameter." Ch. 7, \xc2\xa7 3(a)(i), 025 0220 001-20 (Oct. 2006) provides that\n"[workers] with injuries compensable under the Act shall be provided reasonable and\nnecessary health care benefits as a result of such injuries." See Palmer v. State ex rel. Wyo.\nWorkers\' Safety & Comp. Div., 2008 WY 105, \xc2\xb6\xc2\xb6 17-18, 192 P.3d 125, 129-30 (Wyo. 2008).\n....\nWyo. Sup. Ct., Order Adopting a Uniform or Neutral-Format Citation (Oct. 2,\n2000), http://www.courts.state.wy.us/LawLibrary/univ_cit.pdf, as amended by\nOrder dated Aug. 19, 2005,\nhttp://www.courts.state.wy.us/LawLibrary/univ_cit_amend.pdf.\nThis Matter came before the Court by direction of the Board of Judicial Policy and\nAdministration, in recognition of the increasing level of legal research being conducted via\nthe Internet and other electronic resources, to adopt a public domain, neutral-format citation\nwhich will support use of legal sources in both the traditional book and electronic formats.\nAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, from and after January 1, 2001:\n(1) At the time of issuance, this Court shall assign to all opinions and to those orders\ndesignated by this Court for publication (hereinafter referred to as substantive orders) a\ncitation which shall include the calendar year in which the opinion or substantive order is\nissued followed by the Wyoming U.S. Postal Code (WY) followed by a consecutive number\nbeginning each year with "1" (for example, 2001 WY 1). This public domain, neutral-format\ncitation shall appear on the title page of each opinion and on the first page of each substantive\norder issued by this Court. All publishers of Wyoming Supreme Court materials are requested\nto include this public domain, neutral-format citation within the heading of each opinion or\nsubstantive order they publish.\n254\n\n\x0c(2) Beginning with the first paragraph of text, each paragraph in every such opinion and\nsubstantive order shall be numbered consecutively beginning with a symbol followed by an\nArabic numeral, flush with the left margin, opposite the first word of the paragraph. Paragraph\nnumbers shall continue consecutively throughout the text of the majority opinion or\nsubstantive order and any concurring or dissenting opinions or rationale. Paragraphs within\nfootnotes shall not be numbered nor shall markers, captions, headings or Roman numerals,\nwhich merely divide opinions or sections thereof. Block-indented single-spaced portions of a\nparagraph shall not be numbered as a separate paragraph. All publishers of Wyoming\nSupreme Court materials are requested to include these paragraph numbers in each opinion or\nsubstantive order they publish.\n(3) In the case of opinions which are not to be cited as precedent (per curium opinions) and in\nthe case of all substantive orders (unless otherwise specifically designated by this Court), the\nconsecutive number in the public domain or neutral-format citation shall be followed by the\nletter "N" to indicate that the opinion or substantive order is not to be cited as precedent in\nany brief, motion or document filed with this Court or elsewhere (for example, 2001 WY 1N).\n(4) In the case of opinions or substantive orders which are withdrawn or vacated by a\nsubsequent order of this Court, the public domain, neutral-format citation of the withdrawing\nor vacating order shall be the same as the original public domain, neutral-format citation but\nfollowed by a letter "W" (for example, 2001 WY 1W). An opinion or substantive order issued\nin place of one withdrawn or vacated shall be assigned the next consecutive number\nappropriate to the date on which it is issued.\n(5) In the case of opinions or substantive orders which are amended by a subsequent order of\nthis Court, the public domain, neutral-format citation of the amending order shall be the same\nas the original public domain, neutral-format citation but followed by a letter "A" (for\nexample, 2001 WY 1A). Amended paragraphs shall contain the same number as the\nparagraph being amended. Additional paragraphs shall contain the same number as the\nimmediately preceding original paragraph but with the addition of a lower case letter (for\nexample, if two new paragraphs are added following paragraph 13 of the original opinion, the\nnew paragraphs will be numbered 13a and 13b). If a paragraph is deleted, the number of the\ndeleted paragraph shall be skipped in the sequence of paragraph numbering in any\nsubsequently published version of the amended opinion of substantive order, provided that at\nthe point where the paragraph was deleted, there shall be a note indicating the deletion of that\nparagraph.\n(6) For cases decided between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003, for documents filed\nwith the Court, a proper citation shall also include the volume and initial page number of the\nWest Pacific Reporter in which the opinion is published. For cases decided after December\n31, 2003, reference to the volume and initial page number of the West Pacific Reporter in\nwhich the opinion is published shall be optional in documents filed with the Court. The\nWyoming Reporter will remain the official reporter of this Court\'s opinions and, where West\nPacific Reporter citations are available at the time an opinion is issued, this Court will\ncontinue to cite to the West Pacific Reporter in addition to the public domain, neutral-format\ncitation in all of its opinions.\n(7) The following are examples of proper citations to Wyoming Supreme Court opinions:\n255\n\n\x0cFor cases decided before January 1, 2001:\nPrimary cite:\nRoe v. Doe, 989 P.2d 472 (Wyo. 1997).\nPrimary cite with pinpoint cite:\nRoe v. Doe, 989 P.2d 472, 475 (Wyo. 2001).\nPinpoint cite alone:\nRoe, 989 P.2d at 475.\nFor cases decided from and after January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003:\nPrimary cite:\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WY 12, 989 P.2d 1312 (Wyo. 2001).\nPrimary cite with pinpoint cite:\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WY 12, \xc2\xb644, 989 P.2d 1312, 1320 (Wyo. 2001).\nPinpoint cite:\nDoe, \xc2\xb644-45.\nFor cases decided from and after December 31, 2003:\nPrimary cite:\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WY 12 or\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WY 12, 989 P.2d 1312 (Wyo. 2001).\nPrimary cite with pinpoint cite:\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WY 12, \xc2\xb644-45. or\nDoe v. Roe, 2001 WY 12, \xc2\xb644, 989 P.2d 1312, 1320 (Wyo. 2001).\nPinpoint cite:\nDoe, \xc2\xb644-45.\n\n256\n\n\x0cTOPICAL INDEX Contents | Index | Help | < | >\nThis index contains links to the many topics covered in this introduction to legal citation. It\ncan be used like a print index. Its entries are alphabetically arrayed with linked cross\nreferences. To find and then scroll through the entries beginning with a particular letter, click\non the letter or range of letters you want.\nA-B | C | D-F | G-K | L-O | P-R | S-Z\nA\nAbbreviations\n(see also Citation principles, compaction principles and Purposes of citation)\ncourt of decision\njournals, most often cited\nmonths\nparty names\nperiods in\nprior history phrases\nreporter names\nspacing\nstate names\nsubsequent history phrases\n"Accord"\n(see also Signals)\nAddress principles\nAdministrative Agencies\nadjudications\nreports\nregulations\nAdvisory opinions\nALWD Citation Manual cross reference table\nAmerican Law Reports (A.L.R.)\nAnnotations, citation of\nArbitrations, citation of\nAttorney general opinions (see Advisory opinions)\n257\n\n\x0cAuthor\'s name\n(see also Book citations and Journals)\nbooks, individual authors\nbooks, multiple authors\njournal articles\nB\nBankruptcy Reporter\nBills, citation to\nBluebook rules cross reference table\nBook citations\n(see also Parenthetical references, books)\nby institutional authors\nexamples\nin general\nservices\nshort forms\nBook reviews (see Journals)\nBriefs\ncitation form in briefs\ncitations to\n"But cf."\n(see also Signals)\n"But see"\n(see also Signals)\n\n258\n\n\x0cC\nCase citations\n(see also Dates, Ordinal numbers, Party names, Reporters, Signals and State decisions)\naddress or ID\nconditional items in case citations\ndictum\ndissenting opinion\nelectronically reported\nexamples\nfederal decisions\nin general\nin-state citation\ninitials in party names\nlooseleaf services\nmedia-neutral citation\nomissions in party names\norder of citation\nout-of-state citation\nparallel citation\nparenthetical references\nparties\' names (see also Abbreviations)\nplurality opinion\nprior history, explanatory phrases\nprocedural phrases in case names\nrecent decisions\nsentences, citation in\nshort forms\nslip opinions\nstate decisions\nsubsequent history, explanatory phrases\nunreported decisions\nCase documents (see Documents)\n"Cf."\n(see also Signals)\nCitation\nlearning\nlevels of mastery\nmedia-neutral\n259\n\n\x0cpurposes\ntypes of principles\nCitation clauses\nCitation principles\naddress principles\ncompaction principles\ncontent principles\nformat principles\ngenerally\nCitation sentences\n"City of," in party names\nCode of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)\nCodes (see Statute citations)\nCompaction principles\n"Compare...with"\n(see also Signals)\nConstitution citations\nexamples\nin general\npunctuation in citations to\nshort forms\n"Contra"\n(see also Signals)\nContent principles\nCourt of decision\nparenthetical reference\nCourt documents (see Documents)\nCourt of Claims Reports (Ct. Cl.)\n260\n\n\x0cCourts\nfederal citation examples\nparenthetical reference to\nstate citation examples\nD\nDates\nin case citations\nmonth abbreviations\nyear of decision\nDecisions (see Case citations)\nDocket number\nwhen required\nDocuments\n(see also Parenthetical references, documents)\ncitation to case documents\nE\n"E.g."\n(see also Signals)\nElectronic databases\n"Et al."\nin book citations\nin journal citations\nEvidence, rules of\n"Ex rel." in case name\nExecutive orders\n\n261\n\n\x0cF\nFederal decisions, examples\nFederal Register\nFederal regulations (see Regulation citations)\nFederal Regulations, Code of\nFederal Reporter, examples of citation\nFederal reporters, abbreviations\nFederal Rules Decisions, examples of citation\nFederal statutes\n(see also Statute citations)\nFederal Supplement, examples of citation\nFootnotes\nFormat principles\nFull address principles\nG\nGeographic abbreviations\nH\nHistory, words indicating\nI\n"In re," in case names\n"In rem," in case names\n\n262\n\n\x0cInitials\nin party names\nin book author names\nin journal author names\nInstitutional services (see Services)\nInternal Revenue Code\nInternational agreements (see Treaties)\nItalics\nJ\nJournals\nabbreviations, most often cited\narticle citations\nbook reviews\ncitation forms, in general\nexamples\nshort form citation\nstudent writings\nsymposia\ntitle spacing\nL\nLaw journals (see Journals)\nLaw reviews (see Journals)\nLawyer\'s Edition, examples of citation\nLEXIS\nLocal ordinances\nLocation phrases, in party names\nLooseleaf services\ncases reported in\n\n263\n\n\x0cM\nMemorandum, citations to\nMilitary Justice Reporter, examples of citation\nMinimum content principles\nModel codes\nMonth, abbreviations\nMunicipal ordinances (see Local Ordinances)\nN\nNames\nabbreviations in party names\ngiven names, in cases, articles, and books, (see Initials)\nomissions in party names\nNumbers (see Ordinal numbers)\nO\n"Of America," in party names\nOmissions, in party names\nOrder of citation\n(see also Signals)\nOrdinal numbers\nOrdinances (see Local Ordinances)\nP\nParallel citation\nagency material\ncases\nelectronic sources\n264\n\n\x0cParenthetical references\narbitration citations\nbooks\ncourt of decision\ndate of decision\ndictum or dissenting opinion\ndocuments\nin quotations\njournal articles\nregulations\nservices\nsession laws\nstatutes\nwith signals\nParty names\nabbreviations\nin general\nomissions in\nstates in party names\nPresidential proclamations\nPrior history\nexplanatory phrases, examples\nProcedural phrases, in case names\nProcedure, rules of\nPublisher services (see Services)\nPublisher\'s name\nin book citations\nstate code citations\nunofficial code citations\nPunctuation\n(see also Citation principles and Format principles)\nPurposes of citation\n\n265\n\n\x0cQ\nQuotations\nR\nReading citations\nRecent decisions\nRecords (see Documents)\nRedundancy (see Citation principles, compaction principles)\nRegulation citations\n(see also Parenthetical references, regulations)\nCode of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)\nexamples\nFederal Register\nfederal regulations\nshort form citation\nstate regulations\nuncodified regulations\nReporters\n(see also Case citations, address or ID)\nfederal abbreviations\nlooseleaf services\nstate and D.C. abbreviations\nReports of the United States Tax Court, examples of citation\nRestatements\nRules of procedure\nRules of evidence\nS\n"See"\n(see also Signals)\n266\n\n\x0c"See also"\n(see also Signals)\n"See generally"\n(see also Signals)\nSentences, citation in\nSentencing guidelines\nServices\nSession laws\n(see also Parenthetical references, session laws)\nShort forms\nSignals\n"accord"\n"but cf."\n"but see"\n"cf."\n"compare...with"\n"contra"\n"e.g."\ngenerally\nmultiple signals\norder of signals and citations\npreceding signal, none\n" see"\n"see also"\n"see generally"\nSpacing conventions\nState abbreviations\nState decisions\nadministrative rulings\ncases, examples of citation\n"State of," in party names\n267\n\n\x0cState statutes\n(see also Statute citations)\nStatute citations\n(see also Parenthetical references, statutes)\nbills\ndivision identification in state codes\nfederal statutes\nInternal Revenue Code\nnamed statutes\nofficial versus unofficial codifications\npocket parts\nsession laws\nshort form citation\nstate statutes\nsupplements\nuniform acts\nStudent work, in journal citations\nSubsequent actions, omitted in case names\nSubsequent history\n(see also Citation principles, content principles)\nexplanatory phrases\nSupreme Court Reporter, examples of citation\nT\nTerritorial abbreviations\n"The," in case names\nTreaties and other international agreements\nTreatises (see Book citations)\n\n268\n\n\x0cU\nUnderlining or italics\nUniform acts\n"United States," in case names\nUnited States Claims Court Reporter, examples of citation\nUnited States Reports, examples of citation\nUnreported or unpublished cases\nV\nVolume Numbers\nbooks\ncase reports\njournals\nW\nWESTLAW\nY\nYear\nof decision\nof regulatory compilation\nof statutory compilation\n\n269\n\n\x0c'