String Citations-part Ii

• Publication year: 2000
• Pages: 67
• Citation: Vol. 29 No. 9 Pg. 67

29 Colo.Law. 67 Colorado Lawyer 2000.

2000, September, Pg. 67. String Citations-Part II

---

67

Vol. 29, No. 9, Pg. 67

The Colorado Lawyer
September 2000
Vol. 29, No. 9 [Page 67]

Departments
The Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
String Citations - Part II
by K. K. DuVivier
C 2000 K.K. DuVivier

The last Scrivener column1 addressed how strings of citations generally are not effective in briefs: they do not give readers enough specific information about each authority, and they can so seriously interrupt an argument that they cause readers to lose the thread entirely. Consequently, in most briefs, it is better to eliminate string citations and replace them with a more in-depth explanation of the one or two most relevant authorities.2

However, string citations can be useful in some situations For example, you may wish to use a string citation if you need to illustrate that there is a trend of authorities or that more than one case or jurisdiction supports the proposition you urge. String citations also are helpful when readers expect a comprehensive treatment of authorities

In persuasive writing, you should not assume that your readers are familiar with the authorities cited. An explanatory parenthetical phrase can justify the space a string citation consumes in your brief by making an authority's relevance clear. To make your string citations more helpful for your readers, this column addresses some of the rules about explanatory parentheticals

Placement

Explanatory parentheticals should come immediately after the source they explain. If the proposition referenced appears in a case that has been appealed, the parenthetical may come in the middle of the citation, before the subsequent history. However, when the proposition referenced appears in the later decision, the parenthetical should come at the end of the citation, after the final case.

Example (when the parenthetical relates to the F. Supp. case):

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (refusing to exercise personal jurisdiction when the defendant limited its advertising to a local audience), aff'd, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997).3

Example (when parenthetical relates to the F.2d case):

Parker v. Bd. Of Educ., 237 F. Supp. 222, 228-229 (D. Md 1965), aff'd, 348 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1965) (agreeing that a teacher violated school regulations by assigning his...