One thing that has always annoyed me about The Bluebook is that it permits numbers in a page range to be separated by either an en-dash or a hyphen. See The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. 3.2(a) at 72 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n, et al. eds., 20th ed. 2015). This has persisted over several editions. If the purpose of the system is uniformity, why give people that choice? For me, the optionality in the rule means that when a group of people work on a brief, I need to remember to make and ruthlessly enforce the - vs. – call early, or someone will have to go back at the end and fix any inconsistencies between authors.
FWIW, I’ve always been an en-dash kind of person. That’s what the Chicago Manual of Style advises. Unlike The Bluebook, the Chicago Manual is written by professional writers and editors who can make up their minds.
But after today, I’m not sure that will hold, at least for word-count briefs. It seems that the word counter in Microsoft Word counts two numbers separated by a hyphen as one word, but two numbers separated by a en-dash as two. In a 14,000 word limit brief, see Cal. R. Ct. 8.204(c)(1), with lots of record and case citations, that can easily cost 100 words or more. So if left with a choice between the tedious task of killing 100 words of text in an already well-edited brief and running a find/replace to switch n-dashes to hyphens, the latter could prove pretty tempting.
Showing posts with label bluebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bluebook. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
A Disuniform System of Citation
It appears that the good folks at the Sixth District Appellate Program have posted the most recent edition of the California Style Manual online.
I have to say, I’ve always hated the way Yellow Book-style citations look, what with all of the extra parentheses, brackets and supras. The book is also maddeningly imprecise. The rule on abbreviations is, literally, use exactly whatever is on the top of the page in the reporter. And there are all kinds of annoying inconsistencies. For instance, § 1.1[C] explains short cites and provides some examples. In one example, the short cite is after the first cite inside a parenthetical proceeded by “hereinafter.” But in the next example, no “hereinafter.” Why? Doesn’t say.
Even though it’s not technically required, see Cal. R. Ct. 1.200 (giving a choice between the Yellow- and Blue- books “at the option of the party filling the document”), I’ve resigned myself to using the Yellow Book in California appellate briefs because to not do so feels like swimming upstream. But until someone tells me otherwise, it’s Bluebook all the way in superior court (and on this blog too). No doubt, the Bluebook is a mishmash of arbitrary rules made up by senior law review editors for the purpose of hazing junior law review editors. But at least—with a notable exception*—it is a uniform system of citation, as its subtitle proclaims. And it has a decent index.
*The Bluebook is agnostic on whether page ranges can be expressed by a hyphen or an en-dash. See Rule 3.2(a). I can’t tell you how many hours of my life I have wasted ironing out inconsistent dashing in briefs because of this stupid rule. It is particularly frustrating since—as the Chicago Manual of Style Rule 9.58 explains—the proper punctuation for numerical ranges is only the en-dash.
I have to say, I’ve always hated the way Yellow Book-style citations look, what with all of the extra parentheses, brackets and supras. The book is also maddeningly imprecise. The rule on abbreviations is, literally, use exactly whatever is on the top of the page in the reporter. And there are all kinds of annoying inconsistencies. For instance, § 1.1[C] explains short cites and provides some examples. In one example, the short cite is after the first cite inside a parenthetical proceeded by “hereinafter.” But in the next example, no “hereinafter.” Why? Doesn’t say.
Even though it’s not technically required, see Cal. R. Ct. 1.200 (giving a choice between the Yellow- and Blue- books “at the option of the party filling the document”), I’ve resigned myself to using the Yellow Book in California appellate briefs because to not do so feels like swimming upstream. But until someone tells me otherwise, it’s Bluebook all the way in superior court (and on this blog too). No doubt, the Bluebook is a mishmash of arbitrary rules made up by senior law review editors for the purpose of hazing junior law review editors. But at least—with a notable exception*—it is a uniform system of citation, as its subtitle proclaims. And it has a decent index.
*The Bluebook is agnostic on whether page ranges can be expressed by a hyphen or an en-dash. See Rule 3.2(a). I can’t tell you how many hours of my life I have wasted ironing out inconsistent dashing in briefs because of this stupid rule. It is particularly frustrating since—as the Chicago Manual of Style Rule 9.58 explains—the proper punctuation for numerical ranges is only the en-dash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)