Arguably, that identification of underlying source provides adequate notice that the quotation is derivative. The revised rule is also as emphatic as the Blue Tip was before that interior quotation marks should be retained in any case where the embedded quote makes up less than the entirety of the primary quoted passage.
A note published this past June in the Harvard Law Review contains the following passage, footnoted as shown:. See id. The Opinion, supra note 3, at 6 quoting Chaney , U.
Had this note been prepared and published under the twentieth edition, the parentheticals appended to notes 24, 26, and 28 would be gone. Observe that the passage appearing in clause 3 includes internal quotation marks. The retained marks appear in the quoted Chaney passage and are attributed in it to a D. Circuit opinion. Bluebook Rule Also in compliance is the parenthical in note 28 reporting that the alteration to the embedded quote appearing in Chaney originated with the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
For example, in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , U. Los Angeles v. Lyons, U. Littleton , U. Per The Bluebook , that quote within a quote should have been wrapped in single quotation marks. However, this is judicial writing, not a journal article. Judges may well consider it far less important to separate out exactly which language quoted from a past opinion of their own court was in turn recycled from a prior one.
The situation is markedly different when one judicial opinion quotes a prior one that rests on constitutional or statutory language. Being absolutely clear about that dependency argues for retaining the interior quotation marks, even when The Bluebook would trim them.
Justice Thomas, dissenting in a case, Elonis v. Seldin , U. Morton , U. Lyons , U. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization , U. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is a concrete and particularized, and b actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly … trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not … th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Since proposed in by appellate lawyer Jack Metzler, well over 5, opinions from many courts federal and state, appellate and trial have used it.
The earliest use I found among Indiana appellate courts was in the passage quoted above by Justice Slaughter in a June concurring opinion.
0コメント