Talk:Legal citation

Link to Manual of Style

There needs to be some way to get from here to Manual of Style (legal) and back. - maybe there should be some coordination between the two too. Doug. - DDHME 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for a template for case citation, so I made a link for that. I checked out the legal manual of style and I did not recognize anything there that could be useful for someone who searched for "citation" except the template, so I saw no need to do as you suggested. Any thoughts? Blue Rasberry 02:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What a weird case to use as an example

Ehrlichman v. Sirica is a really weird case to use as an example because it is so obscure, and most people outside the U.S. would not know who those persons are. A superior, more internationally sensitive example would be one of the old English cases that all U.S., U.K., and Commonwealth lawyers know about, like Hadley v. Baxendale. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree. I've never seen (or cited) this type of case--a case where the Chief Justice is acting as a Circuit Judge and yet the case is reported in the U.S. reporter. Also, according to the Bluebook, the parenthetical containing the judge/justice's name should appear after the date parenthetical. I'm going to rework this page. --LegalSwoop (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger with'case citation'?

Should this article not be merged with the one on 'case citation'? 128.243.253.101 (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

There is a dead link that I failed to repair. 112.198.90.42 (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal citation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120404021358/http://ieeexplore.ieee.org:80/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=5070630&tag=1 to http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=5070630&tag=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal citation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703221100/http://hudsonlegalblog.com:80/e-discovery/e-discovery-special-report-rising-tide-nonlinear-review.html to http://hudsonlegalblog.com/e-discovery/e-discovery-special-report-rising-tide-nonlinear-review.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si-practice.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge Legal citation and Case citation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These are basically duplicate articles. "Legal citation" is even given in the lead of Case citation in bold as an alternative term, as if it already redirects there.

The better-developed content is at Case citation, but the more general name and thus the preferable title is Legal citation (which also covers citations of legal materials that are technically not legal cases, e.g. regulatory hearings, arbitrations, etc.).

This merge was proposed as long ago as 2010 but was not discussed at all. I'm listing it at WP:Proposed mergers this time, and also "advertising" this at WT:LAW so this pointless content fork gets resolved.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge – the articles cover essentially the same material, and I will be actioning the merge at some point in the next two weeks unless there is objection. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@L235: reminding you of this one just in case you have a specific interest; otherwise, I'm sure that the merge will be done by someone else over the next few months. Klbrain (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this proposal is flawed. The citation of other types of legal sources is fundamentally different (as any user of the Bluebook knows), which is why there needs to be a separate article on legal citation in general.

The problem is that no one, myself included, has the time, energy, or interest to write up separate articles on statutory and regulatory citation. Those are basic skills taught in law school, but they are so mind-numbingly tedious that no one cares to write about them. I suspect that the very few people who might actually care about those types of citation are too busy working as assistants to legislators or as legislators themselves. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Given what appear to be an uncontested claim that these are distinct topics, I'll close the proposal. Klbrain (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)