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


Middle: Rules of Citation and Style


Law Reviews
Tables


Practicing lawyers
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:



Older versions:



“Reference” tab
“Insert footnote” button
“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 one3 — is
surprising. Recall one thing4: 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 FAKE L.J. 200 (2012).
3 Miranda, 384 U.S. at 437.
4 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
2
3
4
5
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 437 (1966).
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 451 (1958).
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 437.
Id.
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 462.
2 Id.
3 Erin F. Norris, Why the Bluebook Drives Me to Drink, 52 FAKE L.J. 100
(2012); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 437 (1966).
4 Miranda, 384 U.S. at 437.
5 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
Id. at 537–38.
See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 557 (1976).
See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 550.
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457 (1981).
See id. at 456.
See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 550.
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 584.
3 Id. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
4 Id. at 638.
5 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. CONST.


If no section:


Small caps
U.S. CONST. amend. II.
Short form:

Id.
Law Review Articles

Author name in regular font



Title of article



If two authors, use an ampersand
Bruce H. Kobayashi & Larry E. Ribstein, Law’s Information Revolution,
53 ARIZ. L. REV. 1169 (2011).
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
ARIZ. L. REV. 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
ARIZ. L. REV. 1169, 1171 (2011).
2 U.S. CONST. 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, 1974. | Decided July 24, 1974.
Answer
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, 1974. | Decided July 24, 1974.



United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 694, ____ (1974).
Nixon, 418 U.S. at ___.
Id. at ____.
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
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



Erwin Chemerinsky, Not a Free Speech Court, 53 ARIZ. L.
REV. 723, ___ (2011).
Chemerinsky, supra note ___, at ____.
Id. at ____.
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.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.


U.S. CONST. amend. XXI, § 1.
Id.
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 www.arizonawriteon.org



Bluebook Citation Help Packets
This presentation
arizonawriteon@gmail.com