Cleveland-Marshall College of Law | Learn Law. Live Justice.



Introductory Signals, Explanatory Parentheticals, String Citations, and Quotations

Introductory Signals

Many times, a writer may wish to convey a more complex reason why he is citing a particular case. For instance, perhaps the writer wants to say to the reader that while he is citing to only one case in support of a proposition, there are several more cases he could cite. Perhaps, the writer wishes to tell the reader that a particular authority would give helpful background information. Perhaps he wishes to indicate, without belaboring the issue, that there is a case that directly contradicts a point he is making.

In all of these situations it is unnecessary to explain fully and in depth why the citation is being used. Indeed, the writer may very well not want to give a lengthy explanation of a case or the reason for its use. Instead he will convey the explanation through the use of introductory signals and explanatory parentheticals. Introductory signals, defined in Rule 1.2 of the Citator, are no more than a stylistic tool designed to enable the writer to make a point about a case to the reader without going into the specific details of that case. Here is an example of the use of an introductory signal:

The court in Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) made an exception to the general at-will employment doctrine. See also Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722, 725 (Ct. App. 1980).

In the above example, the "See also" introductory signal tells the reader that Cleary is another case that supports the proposition that there is an exception to the at-will doctrine. The writer might have introduced Cleary with "Accord," which basically would have meant that the writer wanted to convey that Cleary directly supported the legal proposition attributed to Petermann.

Example:

The court in Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) found the at-will employment doctrine was inapplicable when its use resulted in harsh and undesirable consequences. Accord Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722 (Ct. App. 1980).

Note that introductory signals begin with capital letters, are underlined, and (except for See, e.g., and But see, e.g.,) are not offset from the name of the case by a comma. Indeed, Rule 1.2 shows you exactly how each signal should look. Follow the format precisely.

Knowing which introductory signal to use

Like most everything else in law, there is no hard and fast rule that governs the correct use of introductory signals. Rule 1.2 defines the various signals dividing them into those that indicate support (R.1.2(a)), those that suggest a profitable comparison (R.1.2(b)), those that indicate contradictions (R.1.2(c)), and those that indicate background material (R.1.2(d)).

The only rule that might be gleaned from this with regard to choosing appropriate introductory signals is that, if the writer wishes to indicate a case is similar to another case, she should use E.g., Accord, See, See also, Cf., or Compare with. If the writer wishes to indicate a difference between cases, the appropriate signals to be used are Contra, But see, or But cf.  Logically, if the writer wishes to indicate that Cleary essentially says the same thing as Petermann, he should not say, Contra Cleary....

Order of Signals

There will be times when the writer makes a statement and wishes to tell the reader thereafter several different things with citation form. For example, you might want to tell your reader that without more, an at-will employment contract is terminable for any reason, and you will want to cite your reader to something. Then you might want to tell your reader that there are exceptions, that there is an interesting law review article to read, and that not all states have the same exception. You might do so like this:

An at-will employment contract is generally terminable for any reason. Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174, 178 (Pa. 1974). The majority of states have carved exceptions to this rule, however, when an employer terminates the contract for reasons that violate public policy. See, e.g., Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959). But see Phung v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 491 N.E.2d 1114, 1115-17 (Ohio 1986) (stating that creation of such a claim is a legislative decision). See generally Mark R. Kramer, The Role of the Federal Courts in Changing State Law, 133 U. Pa. L. Rev. 227 (1984).

Rule 1.3 tells you exactly how to order signals when you are seeing more than one signal. It is self-explanatory. Note the punctuation between the various cites. Rule 1.3 says that signals in a single category are strung together in one sentence, while those of different categories are separated into separate sentences. This means that a see also following a previous, similar, authority would not begin with a capital letter. (For example, Jones v. Wagner, 430 U.S. 143, 148 (1987); see also Borris v. Bradstein, 417 U.S. 347, 349 (1967)).

Parentheticals

A parenthetical statement is a short statement in parentheses following a case citation. The parenthetical contains information about the cited case that the writer would like the reader to know.

Rules 1.5 and 10.6 govern the use of explanatory parentheticals. Rule 1.5 tells us that the use of this device is acceptable "when the relevance of a cited authority might not otherwise be clear to the reader." This is why parentheticals go hand in hand with introductory signals: sometimes the writer needs to be more specific about why he would like to compare one case with another, or why a case is different from another or even why an authority is cited for background. Using the example of a paragraph describing at-will employment in California, a parenthetical would be employed as follows:

The court in Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) made an exception to the general at-will employment doctrine. See also Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722, 725 (Ct. App. 1980) (emphasizing good faith covenants in employment contracts).

Note in the above that the writer has made a short statement regarding some aspect of Cleary he would like the reader to know, which perhaps indicates on what basis he would introduce it with "See also." Be aware of the syntax. The period no longer follows the year but comes at the end of the parenthetical statement. As is seen, this parenthetical is not a correct sentence, nor does it have to be. Parentheticals may be one word, two, a phrase, partial sentence, or a complete grammatically correct sentence. There is really only one rule. The first word in the parentheses will be a present participle, unless you are quoting, or a complete participle phrase is not necessary to convey the context. (See R.1.5)

Some other parentheticals one might use for the above example would be:

1. (emphasizing good faith covenants in employment contracts).

2. (distinguishing between public policy and good faith).

3. (discharging an employee in bad faith).

Rule 10.6 expands on R.1.5 by allowing the writer to put information in a parenthetical concerning such things as the voting break-down on the bench, e.g.:

1. (2-1 decision);

2. (Rehnquist, J., dissenting);

3. (plurality opinion);

The nature of the statement for which the case is being cited, e.g.:

1. (dictum);

2. (by implication);

3. (alternative holding);

or which opinion the statement or point is taken from, e.g.:

1. (Rehnquist, J., dissenting);

2. (dissent);

3. (concurrence).

The point is that there is a lot of leeway in the use of parentheticals. It depends solely on what the writer wants the reader to know about a specific case. One of their primary functions is to minimize the need to fully explain a case or a portion of a case, depending on whether the writer is attempting to make a point, or whether the writer simply needs to mention an analogous case that says the same thing a previous case has said. Keep in mind, however, that parentheticals are designed to be time and space savers that make a succinct point and then conclude.

Here is an example of how text without parentheticals evolves through the use of parentheticals:

1. Fully detailed explanation of cases (no parentheticals):

In Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959), the court held that an employee who was discharged after failing to commit perjury at the request of his employer had a cause of action for wrongful discharge. In Petermann, the plaintiff was an employee subpoenaed to go before a legislative committee, and was told that if he did not lie to the committee he would be discharged. The court reasoned that since perjury is a crime, it would violate public policy to allow the plaintiff to be discharged. Id.

In Cleary v. American Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722, 723 (Ct. App. 1980), the court held that a long term at-will employee who was not afforded the opportunity for a review prior to discharge had a cause of action for wrongful discharge against his employer. In Cleary, the plaintiff had been employed over twenty years, had a good record of service, and was discharged without a hearing despite an employee handbook that called for one. The court reasoned that the defendant had, in essence, violated a covenant of good faith implicit in employment contracts. Id. at 724.

2. A shorter synopsis of the same material (with one parenthetical):

In Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959), the court created a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, holding that an employee who refuses to commit perjury at the request of his employer has a cause of action for wrongful discharge. See also Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722, 725 (Ct. App. 1980) (deeming dismissal was a breach of good faith covenant implicit in employment contracts).

3. An alternate, even shorter synopsis (with two parentheticals):

In California, there are two exceptions to the general rule. See, e.g., Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722, 725 (Ct. App. 1980) (holding that an at-will contract contains a covenant of good faith and fair dealing); Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (holding that public policy was violated when employee discharged for failing to commit perjury).

4. A short, short synopsis (with parentheticals):

There are exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. See Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722, 725 (Ct. App. 1980) (good faith covenant); Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (public policy).

String Citations

Rule 1 provides that "[c]itation sentences and clauses may contain more than one authority." There are four situations in which a writer might choose to put more than one authority into a single citation sentence, thus "stringing" the citations.

a. When required by the proposition which the citation supports: e.g.;

Several jurisdictions have held....

Some courts base their reasoning on....

This Court has decided several cases on this issue.

In a long line of cases, this Court has held....

b. When the writer wishes to help the reader do research on the issue.

c. When the citation, through the use of explanatory parentheticals is defining a general proposition, e.g.;

A discharge is wrongful if it violates substantial mandates of public policy. Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 610 P.2d 1330 1332 (Cal. 1980) (violating anti-trust laws); Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (violating California Penal Code).

d. When you are showing a reader that the great weight of authority supports a proposition for which you argue. Generally, however, it is best to avoid string cites whenever a single citation will suffice. They lengthen the text, make it difficult to read and can be annoying to a reader who will not be researching the issues. When you want to convey that there are a great many cases that support something you are saying, you can keep a string cite concise, or eliminate it altogether, by using the introductory signals, e.g., or see, e.g., which of course mean "see for example," or "see, among others."

Rule 1.1 says that, "multiple citations are separated with semicolons." So, a string cite looks like this:

Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 610 P.2d 1330, 1333 (Cal. 1980); Cleary v. Am. Airlines, 168 Cal. Rptr. 722 (Ct. App. 1980); Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. 1959).

The order in a string cite is not arbitrary. According to Rule 1.4(d) the order of items in a string cite is as follows:

1. Constitutions (federal then state)

2. Statutes (federal then state)

3. Treaties

4. U.S. Supreme Court cases;

5. Federal Circuit Court cases;

6. Federal District Court cases;

7. State cases alphabetically by state;

a. Within each state:

i. highest to lowest court

ii. within each court, most recent to oldest case

8. Legislative materials other than statutes

9. Administrative materials

10. Resolutions

11. Records

12. Secondary sources (including law reviews, annotations, restatements)

Please note that any authority may be string-cited and that authority may be mixed within a string-cite. When in doubt, reference Rule 1.4(a)-(j).

String Citation Examples

(1) United States v. McNally, 485 F.2d 398 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Albright, 388 F.2d 719 (4th Cir. 1968); United States v. Pope, 251 F. Supp. 234 (D. Neb. 1966); Vogel v. Wells, 517 N.E.2d 91 (Ohio 1991).

(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1251 (1984); Colten v. Kentucky, 507 U.S. 104 (1989); South Dakota v. Neville, 456 U.S. 971 (1982); State v. Bock, 328 P.2d 1065 (Idaho 1958); Dudley v. State, 548 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).

(3) Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2913.33 (Anderson 1987); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981); State v. Andrews, 412 N.E.2d 86 (Ohio 1991); City of Westerville v. Cunningham, 151 N.E.2d 121 (Ohio 1958); Phipps v. Dayton, 421 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

(4) Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); United States v. Richus, 737 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1984); State v. Holt, 156 N.W.2d 884 (Iowa 1968); State v. Bobo, 524 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

(5) United States v. Cramer, 137 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1943); United States v. Haupt, 136 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1943); Smith v. Price, 446 F. Supp. 826 (M.D. Ga. 1977); Roberts v. Bohn, 269 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969); Schaffer v. Burdette, 33 Ohio Misc. 2d 12 (Cleve Mun. Ct. 1986).

Note that in #5, Cramer goes before Haupt because it is in a later volume, thus a more recent case. In addition, because Roberts contains citation to two reporters we will assume the string cite is from a document filed in an Ohio court.

Note that string cites may also be used with explanatory parentheticals and short forms.

Examples:

Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980) (finding no violation of the Fifth Amendment); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); United States v. Richus, 737 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding that there was no right to counsel prior to arrest); State v. Holt, 156 N.W.2d 884 (Iowa 1968); State v. Bobo, 524 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

United States v. Cramer, 137 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1943) (holding that counsel was not ineffective during plea stage); Haupt, 136 F.2d at 664 (holding that defendant’s plea was not voluntary); Smith v. Price, 446 F. Supp. 826 (M.D. Ga. 1977) (finding no purposeful malice on part of state official); Roberts, 269 N.E.2d at 79; Schaffer v. Burdette, 33 Ohio Misc. 2d 12 (Cleve Mun. Ct. 1986).

Quotations

When to use a quotation within a legal document is a matter of discretion. As a matter of style, quotations, especially long ones, should be used sparingly for two reasons. First, it is likely that if the writer puts an idea into his own words he will be able to express it more concisely than the court did. Second, a document laden with quotes is difficult to read because quotation marks and the other paraphernalia of quotations are distracting.

A third reason, however, applies to first year law students. Putting ideas into one's own words is integral to the learning process. Until you can say it in your own words, without resort to quotation, you do not really understand it.

Citation rules regarding quotations are the following:

1. Quotations of forty-nine or fewer words are part of the text and are set off only by quotation marks. The citation directly follows the quotation.

Example:

The power to terminate an at-will contract "may be limited by statute . . . or by considerations of public policy." Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 27 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959).

2. Quotations of fifty or more words are set-off from the text. They

are block indented and single-spaced and set apart by two spaces above and below. No quotation marks are used. The citation is a continuation of the text.

Example:

In Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 344 P.2d 25, 28 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959), the court held that an employer may not fire an at-will employee for refusing to commit perjury. The court reasoned that both the commission and subornation of perjury were crimes and stated,

[t]o hold that one's continued employment could be made contingent upon his commission of a felonious act at the instance of his employer would be to encourage criminal conduct upon the part of both the employee and employer and would serve to contaminate the honest administration of public affairs. This is patently contrary to the public welfare.

Id. at 27. Thus, the court stated the discharge was unreasonable and "contrary to the spirit of the law." Id.

3. The writer is not required to give an entire quote in its pristine state if it is unwise or unnecessary to do so. Quotations may be shortened, words may be inserted or omitted, tenses may be changed, and so forth. The only requirement is that the writer indicate clearly that he is tailoring the quotation.

a. If language is removed from the middle or end of a quote, ellipses are used.

Example: "To hold that one's continued employment could be made contingent upon his commission of a felonious act . . . would be to encourage criminal conduct. . . ."

b. If language is removed from the beginning of a quote, brackets around the first letter of the first word quoted are used. An ellipsis should never begin a quotation.

Example #1 (brackets and ellipsis):

Correct usage:

"[O]ne's continued employment contingent upon his commission of a felonious act would be to encourage criminal conduct . . . ."

Incorrect usage:

". . . one's continued employment contingent upon his commission of a felonious act would be to encourage criminal conduct . . . ."

Example #2 (brackets without ellipses):

The court reasoned that a holding to the contrary "[w]ould serve to contaminate the honest administration of public affairs."

c. If the writer is changing a letter from upper to lower case, modifying a word, changing tenses, or otherwise tailoring a word, or inserting language of his own, he places brackets around the change.

Example #1:

"[h]old[ing] that one's continued employment. . ."

Example #2:

The court stated that, "[t]o hold that one's continu[ous] employment. . . ."

Example 3:

"To hold that one's continued employment could be made contingent upon the commission of the [felony] would be to. . . ."

Example 4:

"Making one's continued employment [in an at-will situation] . . . contingent upon his commission of a felonious act would be to encourage criminal conduct . . . , and would further be repugnant to public policy. . . ."

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download