Citation Workshop 2012 Write-On Competition Hosted by Arizona Law Review

Citation Workshop  Bluebook Overview  Citing in Footnotes  Cases  Constitutions  Law Review Articles

Why Bluebook?  Most popular citation system  Every publication at the College of Law  Almost every law review in the country  Most employers

Using the Bluebook  Bluepages  Practicing lawyers  Middle: Rules of Citation and Style  Law Reviews  Tables  Work with the rules  Bluebook Citation Help Packet  All of the rules that you will need for the Write-On

Footnotes in Word  Newer versions:  “Reference” tab  “Insert footnote” button  Older versions:  “Insert” drop down menu  scroll down to “Footnote”  Quick Keys:  PC: Alt+Ctrl+F  Mac: Option+Command+F

Citing in Footnotes  Insert a footnote call number  at the end of a textual sentence if the cited authority supports (or contradicts) the entire sentence  within the sentence next to the portion it supports if the cited authority supports (or contradicts) only that part of the sentence.  Example: Footnote one supports this entire sentence. 1 Footnote two supports only this portion of the sentence, 2 and footnote three supports the rest of the sentence. 3

Citing in Footnotes  Call number comes after any punctuation mark  Exceptions: dash or a colon.  Footnote may include textual sentences that are related to the main text  Period at the end of each citation.

Citing in Footnotes: Example This is sentence one. 1 Sentence two contains two call numbers; 2 however, only one of these — this one 3 — is surprising. Recall one thing 4 : call numbers precede dashes. _________________ 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 437 (1966). 2 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 451 (1958); Gregory Schneider, Bluebook Panic, 101 F AKE L.J. 200 (2012). 3 Miranda, 384 U.S. at Remember to put a period at the end of each citation.

Cases  Very similar to ALWD  Key differences:  Abbreviations (T6)  Do not italicize full case names in footnotes  Only italicize short forms  Five footnote rule

Cases: When to Italicize Do not italicize full case names in footnotes. 1 Leave them in ordinary type. 2 Only italicize short forms, 3 such as “id.” 4 Note that you must italicize case names in textual sentences, such as when stating that Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark civil rights case. 5 _________________ 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 437 (1966). 2 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 451 (1958). 3 Miranda, 384 U.S. at Id. 5 Id. Also note that you must italicize Miranda v. Arizona and other case names in textual sentences within footnotes.

Cases: A Note About “id.”  Only use “id.” when citing the immediately preceding authority  within the same footnote or  within the immediately preceding footnote when the preceding footnote contains only one authority.  Note that the period at the end of “id.” is always italicized. _________________ 1 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 451 (1958). This case dealt with an Alabama law that violated the First Amendment. Id. at Id. 3 Erin F. Norris, Why the Bluebook Drives Me to Drink, 52 F AKE L.J. 100 (2012); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 437 (1966). 4 Miranda, 384 U.S. at Id.

Cases: the Five Footnote Rule A short form for a case may be used if the case (1) is already cited in the same footnote or (2) is cited (in either full or short form, including “id.”) in one of the preceding five footnotes. Otherwise a full citation is required. 1United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985). 2 Id. at 537–38. 3 See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 557 (1976). 4See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457 (1981). 6See id. at See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 540 (1985).

Cases: Concurring, Dissenting, Plurality Opinions  For concurring or dissenting opinions:  Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure), 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Judge/Justice name, J., dissenting/concurring ).  For plurality opinions:  Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 840 (1992) (plurality opinion).  Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 930 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part).  Short forms:  When “id.” refers to the same case, and to the same opinion cited in the preceding citation, no parenthetical is necessary.  When the “id.” refers to a different opinion, that fact must be indicated parenthetically, even if the second opinion cited is the majority opinion. 1 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure), 343 U.S. 579 (1952). 2 Id. at Id. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). 4 Id. at Id. at 589 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). 6 Id. at 582 (majority opinion). 7 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 840 (1992) (plurality opinion).

Constitutional Amendments  U.S. C ONST.  Small caps  If no section:  U.S. C ONST. amend. II.  Short form:  Id.

Law Review Articles  Author name in regular font  If two authors, use an ampersand  Bruce H. Kobayashi & Larry E. Ribstein, Law’s Information Revolution, 53 A RIZ. L. R EV (2011).  Title of article  in italics  Capitalize according to Rule 8  Journal name  in SMALL CAPS  Abbreviate according to Table 13

Law Review Articles: Short Citation Forms  Id.  immediately preceding authority within the same footnote or as the sole authority within the immediately preceding footnote 1 Bruce H. Kobayashi & Larry E. Ribstein, Law’s Information Revolution, 53 A RIZ. L. R EV. 1169, 1171 (2011). 2 See id. at 1172.

Law Review Articles: Short Citation Forms  Supra  If have cited in full once, and id. is inappropriate  Author last name, supra note ___, at ___. 1 Bruce H. Kobayashi & Larry E. Ribstein, Law’s Information Revolution, 53 A RIZ. L. R EV. 1169, 1171 (2011). 2 U.S. C ONST. amend. II. 3 Kobayashi & Ribstein, supra note 1, at 1175.

Practice! 94 S.Ct. 3090, 418 U.S. 694 Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, et al. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Nos. 73—1766, 73—1834. | Argued July 8, | Decided July 24, 1974.

Answer  United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 694, ____ (1974).  Nixon, 418 U.S. at ___.  Id. at ____. 94 S.Ct. 3090, 418 U.S. 694 Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, et al. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Nos. 73—1766, 73—1834. | Argued July 8, | Decided July 24, 1974.

Practice! 53 Ariz. L. Rev. 723 Arizona Law Review Fall 2011 Lecture Isaac Marks Memorial Lecture: March 8, 2011 NOT A FREE SPEECH COURT Erwin Chemerinsky Copyright (c) 2011 Arizona Board of Regents; Erwin Chemerinsky

Answer  Erwin Chemerinsky, Not a Free Speech Court, 53 A RIZ. L. R EV. 723, ___ (2011).  Chemerinsky, supra note ___, at ____.  Id. at ____. 53 Ariz. L. Rev. 723 Arizona Law Review Fall 2011 Lecture Isaac Marks Memorial Lecture: March 8, 2011 NOT A FREE SPEECH COURT Erwin Chemerinsky Copyright (c) 2011 Arizona Board of Regents; Erwin Chemerinsky

Practice! U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. XXI Amendment XXI. Repeal of Prohibition Amendment Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Answer  U.S. C ONST. amend. XXI, § 1.  Id. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. XXI Amendment XXI. Repeal of Prohibition Amendment Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

More Practice  ICWs:  Exercise 18A: Law Review Footnotes-Case Citations  Exercise 18D: Law Review Footnotes-Secondary Sources  Exercise 18E: Law Review Footnotes-Short Forms

Questions?  Download at  Bluebook Citation Help Packets  This presentation 