JoanShear | 23 March, 2007 13:44
Message received via e-mail:I was hoping to get some help on a law review article that I'm helping a professor with. I am currently preparing some footnote citations according to Bluebook rules, and a few questions have come up. I hope that these questions make sense and can be answered quickly. [The questions and their answers appear below.]
Question 1. Must supra be used, and if so, when (rule 16.7 says to use it in regard to periodicals, rule 15.9 says it "may" be used)?
Answer: You are correct that these two rules seem contradictory, since one is permissive and the other seems to require the use of a short form. But Rule 15 (permissive use) only refers to non-periodical materials. If you are citing to law review articles, you will need to use the short forms for subsequent citations.
Question 2. If supra is used, and the first note where there is a reference to the work contains two works by that author, how is that situation to be treated? Should the long form be used in the second citation, and then supra in subsequent citations?
Answer: Rule 4.2(b) should come to your aid here. You can build non-confusing short forms for the two articles using the "hereinafter" construction explained there. Use the long form with a hereinafter the first time you cite a source and the short form you invented from then on.
Question 3. Rule 15.4 says that if there is only a single edition, cite by the date (without giving the publisher). However, if there is more than one edition, how can you know if subsequent editions are by the same publisher or a different publisher (the former not requiring the publisher, the latter requiring it as I understand)?
Answer: A good faith search through a union catalog like WorldCat should allow you to conclude there is only one edition if you can't find anything, or give you access to catalog records that will let you know the publishers of the various editions if you find something.
Question 4. Finally, rule 15.3 says that a subtitle is only given for books if it is "particularly relevant." Can you offer any guidance on determining which subtitles are and are not?
Answer: Relevance is in fact a judgment call, but what I usually look for is - does it explain more clearly what the book is about. For example, Richard Posner's new book it called, "Not a Suicide Pact." It is only in the subtitle that you realize the book is about, "The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." This is definitely one for which I would include a subtitle. On the other hand, "America's Lawyer-Presidents: From Law Office to Oval Office" could easily loose the sub-title without leaving anyone in the dark about the subject-matter of the book.
| « | March 2007 | » | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |