Subsequent History
The subsequent history of case is what happened to that case after the opinion was
written, in terms of the case perhaps being reversed, affirmed, modified, or having a petition
for certiorari denied by the United States Supreme Court or a state supreme court.
Why is this important? The answer to this question should be obvious. The
subsequent history of a case affects its quality as precedent and therefore a reader will be
very interested in knowing what that history is.
A typical (hypothetical) citation including subsequent history looks like this:
Briggs v. North, 564 F. Supp. 585 (W.D. Mich. 1995), aff'd, 746 F.3d 1475 (6th Cir. 1996),
rev’d, 573 U.S. 909 (1997).
What the above is telling the reader is that the written opinion in Briggs can be
found in Volume 564 of the Federal Supplement on page 585, that the decision was affirmed
by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996, that the affirmance is noted in Volume 746 of
the Federal Reporter, Third Series, page 1475, and that the United States Supreme Court
reversed this case in 1997, and that the opinion is in Volume 573 of the United States
Reports, page 909.
Note please:
1. Subsequent history is appended to the cite, separated from that
cite by a comma.
2. The underlined words are the subsequent event and are set off by
a comma and abbreviated according to Table T.8.
3. The inclusion of cert. denied need not be included.
Where subsequent history is found
Subsequent history is found by shepardizing a case or key citing a case. All cases
used in a legal document should be shepardized, if not for the purpose of updating, then
specifically for the purpose of finding if there is subsequent history.
What subsequent events should be included
Rule 10.7 of the Citator specifically states:
Whenever a decision is cited in full, give the entire subsequent
history of the case, but omit denials of certiorari or denials of similar
1
discretionary appeals, unless the decision is less than two years old or
the denial is particularly relevant. Omit also the history on remand
or any denial of a rehearing unless relevant to the point for which the
case is cited. Finally, omit any disposition withdrawn by the
deciding authority, such as an affirmance followed by reversal on
rehearing.
Note that the rule does not require denials of certiorari when the
denial is more than two years old. Note also that the rule excludes the
necessity of including prior history. Prior history is what happened to the
case before the opinion was written. It is to be excluded unless it is of
significance to the issue at hand, or unless the writer would like to convey a
particular point about the case.
Examples of subsequent events that should be included in a proper citation are the
following:
Event:
Appearing as:
1.
denials or dismissals
of certiorari
cert. dismissed
cert. denied
2.
affirmances
aff'd, aff'd on
remand, aff'd per curiam
3.
reversals
4.
decisions vacated
5.
cases overruled
overruled
6.
modified
modified
7.
certiorari granted
cert. granted
rev'd
vacated,
vacated on other grounds
Note please that the events mandated are those that actually affect a case's weight,
precedential value or validity. This is why events such as the denial of a rehearing are
generally excluded. Furthermore, table T.8 tells the writer exactly how an event should
look, not only its abbreviation, but whether it is set off by commas as well. You might also
want to keep in mind that if the case name changes with a subsequent event, the new case
name must be included. (Rule 10.7.2).
2
Here are examples of correctly formatted subsequent history (disregarding the two year
rule):
1.
Smith v. Jones, 76 F. Supp. 495 (D.C. Ohio 1932), overruled by, Jones v. Keller, 79
F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1936).
2.
Antigone v. Muse, 495 F.2d 1492 (2d Cir. 1989), aff'd per curiam, 497 U.S. 1765
(1990).
3.
Fisher v. Baird, 393 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1979), aff'd, 459 U.S. 276 (1983).
4.
Embassy v. Paris, 461 F.2d 329 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 398 (2007).
Look carefully at Example 4: there appears to be a mistake in the citation, doesn't
there? The cite to Embassy does not include the date of decision. In fact, this is not a
mistake in one situation. When the year of the decision and the year an event in its
subsequent history took place are the same, include the date only once in the final citation of
the year.
Keep in mind that subsequent history is also to be included in state court decisions
(as in example 3). Keep in mind also that when doing subsequent short citations for a case,
the subsequent history is disregarded completely.
For more examples of how subsequent history is to be cited, please see Rules 10.7
and 10.7.1 of the Citator.
3