{"id":404,"date":"2015-08-28T15:06:22","date_gmt":"2015-08-28T15:06:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/?p=404"},"modified":"2021-12-11T18:12:55","modified_gmt":"2021-12-11T18:12:55","slug":"the-bluebooks-inconsistency-about-when-to-identify-an-electronic-source","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/?p=404","title":{"rendered":"The Bluebook’s Inconsistency about When to Identify an Electronic Source"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Issue<\/h2>\n

Most legal research in the U.S. is conducted using electronic source material, and for many types of cited works, primary and secondary, there are at least several\u00a0possible sources.\u00a0 A pervasive issue is whether a citation ought specify the source relied upon by the author or whether instead a generic citation, adequate to retrieve the cited work from all widely used sources, will suffice<\/a>.\u00a0 The latest edition of The Bluebook<\/em> delivers inconsistent and, at times, \u00a0confusing guidance on the point.<\/p>\n

Cases<\/h2>\n

Consider a\u00a0brief that cites a slew of cases, state and federal. \u00a0If the author has retrieved them all from an online source (Westlaw, Fastcase, Google Scholar, an official court Web site) should\u00a0her citations\u00a0note that source? \u00a0A fair reading of The Bluebook<\/em> (20th ed.) yields the conclusion that they\u00a0need not. \u00a0Rule 10.8.1 authorizes, but does not require<\/strong>, citation to a specific database when “a case is unreported but available in a widely used electronic database.”\u00a0 There is no suggestion that a citation to a “reported” decision (i.e. reported in print), such as State v. McIver<\/em>, 858 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 2015),\u00a0 need state that the author relied upon Google Scholar or Fastcase or acknowledge that despite the use of volume and page numbers, she did not review the text in the print reporter to which they correspond. Similarly, a citation to\u00a0State v. Ortega<\/em>, 2014-NMSC-017, \u00b6 55 is apparently complete without a notation clarifying whether the writer relied upon the official digital version available from the New Mexico Compilation Commission site<\/a> or the altered version offered by Westlaw<\/a>. \u00a0On this point The Bluebook<\/em>‘s silence is in full accord with the citation practice of lawyers and judges.\u00a0 The twentieth edition, like the nineteenth, appears to accept generic case citations.<\/p>\n

Statutes, Constitutions, and Court Rules<\/h2>\n

What The Bluebook<\/em> Says
\n<\/em><\/h3>\n

Generic citations to a constitution or statutory provision are a different matter. \u00a0Rule 12.5(a) insists that when the writer’s source for a statutory code citation is an electronic database, the citation should include the name of the database, the publisher (unless a public office), and its currency. \u00a0Rule 11 lays down the same requirement for citations to constitutions even though it doesn’t call for identification of source if it\u00a0is printed. (Presumably, one can be working from the U.S. Constitution as printed in The World Almanac and Book of Facts<\/em> without confessing it.)\u00a0 In contrast, rule 12.9.3 fully embraces citations to rules of evidence and procedure that leave off source, whether print or electronic. \u00a0Consistency in approach is lacking;\u00a0no\u00a0clear rationale for the different requirements\u00a0is evident.<\/p>\n

What Judges and Lawyers Do
\n<\/em><\/h3>\n

When contemporary decisions\u00a0of the U.S. Supreme Court or U.S. Court of Appeals cite provisions of the\u00a0U.S. Copyright Act they refer to them by U.S. Code title and section number\u00a0\u2013 no date (current provision being implied), no indication of source.\u00a0 The odds are very high that the source relied upon by the judges or their clerks was Westlaw.\u00a0 That being the case The Bluebook<\/em> (rule 12.5) would call for a citation along these lines:<\/p>\n