Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Another Stupid Bluebook Rule
In past editions of the Bluebook, the Illinois Appellate Court was abbreviated as "Ill. App." In recent editions, it's abbreviated now as "Ill. App. Ct."
In past editions of the Bluebook, the Indiana Court of Appeals was abbreviated as "Ind. App." And yes, we knew it was a court without having "Ct." as part of that abbreviation. The abbreviation now for the Indiana Court of Appeals is now "Ind. Ct. App."
So we have "Ill. App. Ct." and "Ind. Ct. App." today where we would have previously just had "Ill. App." and "Ind. App."
Do the Bluebook editors think that we don't know that the Illinois Appellate Court is a court? Why do we need "Ct." as part of the abbreviation? It adds nothing substantively to the citation. It wastes time of countless lawyers and law students who have to look up each state individually to see if "Ct." goes before or after "App." It's another stupid Bluebook Rule.
(mew)
P.S. Guest rants against the Bluebook are welcome. Send us your favorite stupid Bluebook Rule.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2016/09/another-stupid-bluebook-rule.html
Honestly, two things. Printing is no longer in the 1920s, space and costs are not driving journal decisions, and we don't need to panic about each single letter. Second, consistency; we should have a clear set of rules so either the rule applies to abbreviated or the rule says don't abbreviate. Either way, no need for odd data sets of inconsistent abbreviations.
If you have never worked with OSCOLA, or seen it, try the free PDF from Oxford. That's right, it's free and it's concise. I regret that our own system is so poor (yet expensive) in contrast. I like the basic styling of Blue Book, but why is it mired in the past?
Posted by: anon | Sep 28, 2016 11:21:45 PM