Citation Overload: Write Smart, Cite Smarter

Citations matter. Love them or hate them: Legal readers want them and, to be fair, they need them. After all, citations are how readers verify what you tell them about the law. But citations are also one of the easiest ways to clutter your writing. So choose your cites with care and make it clear how each supports what you say.

To see why your citation style matters, look at this snippet of legal writing, drowned by cites:

"Defendants contend that the exclusion of evidence relating to the plaintiff's prior legal actions is appropriate pursuant to Rule of Evidence 403, quoting with approval a series of cases that address the question of prejudicial impact versus probative value, including Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, 308 F.3d 840, 845 (8th Cir. 2002); Collins v. Kibort,274 F.3d 377, 385 (7th Cir.2001); and Springs v. First Nat'l Bank of Cut Bank, 835 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir.1988). Further complicating matters, the plaintiff cites to an entirely different set of authorities to counter defendants' argument and to present an antithetical view of the standard for probative value, including Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008); Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 688-89 (1988); and L.B. Foster Co. v. America Piles, Inc., 138 F.3d 81, 89-90 (2d Cir.1998). This Court's role is now to untangle the threads of these cases and form a coherent rule to apply here."

Did readers need all these citations? Likely not. Here’s a rewrite without the legalese: 

"Defendants argue for the exclusion of evidence, citing Rule 403 and cases like Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, 308 F.3d 840, 845 (8th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff, conversely, offers cases like Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008). This Court's role is now to untangle the threads of these cases and form a coherent rule to apply here."

Citations are double-edged. Use them well, and they help. Lean on them too heavily, and your writing loses its voice.

Most importantly, if you cite authority, you should either quote the source or directly paraphrase it. But lawyers constantly drop citations on readers without explaining how those citations support their points. Talk about a credibility killer. If your readers need to go look up a case to figure out how it supports the sentence you’re writing, you’ve likely lost them.

Often the cite’s relationship to your sentence is already clear. As you set up the prep for your rule, you might share general principles that require a quick cite and nothing more. “Plaintiff has the burden here. [cite]” might be an example. But that would still be true only if the case said that in so many words—no inference needed.

In any event, when you start explaining your rule, especially an important one, don’t rely on empty citations. Do the inferential reasoning for your reader and put it on display. Link what matters from the source to your points so obviously that even the busiest readers can’t miss it. 🔗

Say you write this:

"Defendants need not touch the plaintiff’s skin to carry out a battery— touching something laying on the plaintiff’s body is enough. Park v. Hoffman, 324 F.3d 42, 44 (9th Cir. 2018)."

When your reader pulls up page 44 of Park, it should say something like: “A defendant contacts another by touching any item on the plaintiff’s body.” Different words but identical meaning.

If your reader must infer—say, you assume that this was the court’s reasoning based on the facts in the case, or you’re reading between the lines of some language and what the court didn’t say—don’t just cite the case for that general proposition. One option is to explain your inference directly:

"Given that the court in Park addressed a defendant who ripped a plate from the plaintiff’s hand, contact with the plaintiff’s skin is not needed. 324 F.3d 42, 44 (9th Cir. 2018)."

Your citation is not misleading because you’re telling your reader what inferences you relied on. You did the inferential work for them. You could also interpret the rule in your own words then explain the supporting facts or quotes with citations.

"Contact with the plaintiff’s skin is not needed. In Park, the court addressed a defendant who ripped a plate from the plaintiff’s hand. 324 F.3d 42, 44 (9th Cir. 2018). . . ."

Now you made clear where the inference came from. Credibility managed. But when your reader will not instantly know what a case said or why you cited it, explain it. So again, avoid using cites like this:

"The rule of plevin requires courts to inquire further when parties dispute the terms of an agreement. Park v. Hoffman, 654 F.2d 578 (2012)."

Instead, explain the citation’s purpose and operation plainly:

"The rule of plevin requires courts to inquire further when parties dispute the terms of an agreement. Park v. Hoffman, 654 F.2d 578 (2012) (considering a contract dispute and explaining courts cannot stop at plain language when interpreting)."