***Carol,
I believe that, historically, there has been a divergence of
citation systems between the courts and academia (i.e., The
Bluebook). It seems that the courts have tended toward requiring
the "official" citation to reports and unannotated statutes while
I think at points academia has leaned toward West cites (e.g.,
the regionals <--I can't verify that since I don't have a
Bluebook here at home; shame on me). At least the Bluebook has
provided for citation to the regionals when some state courts
have not permitted it. This has led to sufficient inconsistency
in citation form to make us over-reliant on searching by case
name. And this has especially gotten to be a problem when
searching for decisions with case names like Smith v. Jones.
I believe that, with the mounting of libraries on the Web, one of
AALL's real opportunities at this point would be to push for
standardization of citation form. This might include attempting
to persuade the courts as well as the editors of the four law
reviews who are responsible for the Bluebook. It seems that
justices often wish to run their courts their way, and it
sometimes strikes me that the law review editors wish to do what
is expedient for them.
AALL and the ABA have come forward with a recommendation, and it
has valuable features. (Thanks to you, Lynn Foster and many
others.) It seems to me that, in the interest of those of us who
search databases/files, we owe it to the association and to each
other to push for the acceptance of a standardized citation form.
I would suggest that the "push" might come by lobbying our
various constituencies, whether they be judges or law review
editors.
BTW, I would be surprised if the Bluebook editors would take the
time to check with any judge. As I say, I believe their focus is
probably on what works most expeditiously for them at the moment.
I am glad that they have made some accommodation to citation to
electronic formats. It's a needed step forward.
I presume that La. attorneys will not look to the Bluebook. It
was "death" to me when I was in practice. Presumably, they will
look to the court rules. Until we can persuade the courts and
academia to change the rules and arrive at a standardized
citation form, you, Carol, and other valiant librarians will be
rescuing those new members of the Bar who stray into the
Bluebook.
Best wishes,
Bill
p.s., I missed the convention; if I am saying something old or
off base, please accept my regrets.
****************************************************************
* Bill Draper net: bdraper@oyez.law.upenn.edu *
* Head Of Circulation Svcs/Ref Librarian vox: 215/898-3059 *
* Biddle Law Library fax: 215/898-6619 *
* University of Pennsylvania *
* 3460 Chestnut Street *
* Philadelphia PA 19104-3406 *
* *
* "No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in that *
* kind of paper." *
* -- Mike Royko on the Chicago Sun-Times after *
* it was taken over by Rupert Murdoch *
****************************************************************
Ideas expressed are not those of the Biddle Law Library or of the
University of Pennsylvania; they are my own.
>
> In my earlier comment about the 16th edition's unhelpful
> treatment of Louisiana I shouldhave explained that since
> Louisiana's court rule specifies that our public domain
> citation, unlike the ABA/AALL/South Dakota/Wisconsin
> format, consists of case name, docket number, court
> abbreviation, and date of issue--with slip opinion page
> number for pinpoint cites, section 10.3.1 is extremely
> misleading. I hope that the Louisiana rule will be
> changed to comply with the ABA/AALL format, but until
> it is, documents submitted to Louisiana courts must follow
> the existing rule. Therefore, Louisiana attorneys looking
> to the 16th edition for guidance will at least be confused
> and quite possibly wrong. Too bad the editors didn't even
> bother to call the court or look at our rules.
> Carol Billings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 28 2007 - 11:07:18 PST