When I read a brief citing a legal proposition that does not include a pinpoint citation and the actual language from the opinion, I assume the party is lying. I get very annoyed when people say, "X case stands for Y proposition" without ever PROVING why. Generall people who make these broad statments didn't read the case. Rather, they obtained the "rule statement" from a treatise (probably authored in large part by a law student, who himself may or may not have read the opinion).

Gee thanks. I get all excited about a mass of traffic I'm getting from CC's blog, and discover it's because he decided to rip me a new body cavity.

This may call for a separate blog post on my part, but I think we are seeing a wide gap between academia and practitioners' reality here. And I should add, by the way, that I have the same federal law clerk background as CC, and I am as much an adherent to the Bluebook as anyone else. That said, if I choose to cite 4 cases in support of the same general proposition, following 1 cite which I analyze in detail in a given motion, do I have the time to make sure each one is pin-cited? No. Does the client want to pay for such extra time? No. Does opposing counsel engage in this practice? Not only is the answer No, but I'm quite used to my citations being superior to most older lawyers' cite styles. I'd say that 90% of practitioners don't even know what Bluebook standards are, much less the distinctions between "general cites and pin cites". And don't even get me started on the subject of whether judges
read the citations. Most good judges will certainly read the citations to IMPORTANT cases, but will they read #2 or #3 in a 3-case string cite? I think not. Why, then, should Client pay for my taking the time to ensure string cites?

(I meant "pin cites" in my last sentence, of course, and not "string cites").

I almost always use pin cites, after being bashed around about it by my boss. But sometimes it's damn annoying. Do I really need to pin-point cite a sentence like "The Supreme Court has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)"?

I long for the olden days when lawyers would dash off flippant references like this one: "we know of no decisions which would support the proposition, except those made by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and we cannot give our sanction to the reasoning of those cases." Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1, 6 (1857). Now, you have to really know what you're reading to catch that this is actually a cite to Harding v. Goodlett, 11 Tenn. 40 (1832)! I know, it makes it impossible to Shepardize, but that just forces you to actually read the cases!

Dang kids today. Don't know how easy they have it.

Understood (he writes after scoring the 175 writing competition entries).

I'm no academic and I have worked on many section 1983 and death penalty cases that ended up as published opinions, in the news, yada, yada. Anyhow, Bryan A. Garner is my teacher, though we have never met. He says to never use string cites. I agree. Other sources on legal writing echos this advice. I quit a job because my boss disagreed with me and made me waste precious words citing to cases. So if we ixnay the string cites, then pin cites within the string cites are no longer an issue. Sans string sites!

I couldn't disagree with the last post more. If there are 3 cases strongly agreeing with a proposition of law that favors my argument, I want the judge to know about them, yet I don't want to lose his attention by turning an 8-page brief into a 64-page one because I summarize the holdings of every favorable case I can find. String cites (of reasonable length, which no one here has defined) resolve that dilemna.

Sorry, UCL, I agree with CC. Maybe it's because I'm an appellate lawyer. It doesn't take much time to add the pin cites, IMO, and I found it inordinately helpful to the judge (and the clerk) when I was clerking.

You shouldn't cite cases w/o reading them carefully, IMO, and if you've read them carefully, it shouldn't take more than a moment to find the right page number. JMO.

As has been discussed in numerous locations around the blogosphere, I'm not convinced CC and I actually disagree. I don't believe what CC intended to criticize was anything I actually did.

As for string cites, again, I note that no one has defined what makes a reasonable one, and I reject the implication that they should "never" be utilized. "Never" and "always" are strong words which are only asking to be slapped around by, say, a majority opinion written by Justice O'Connor. Further, it borders on malpractice to cite a single case in support of a particular proposition if there are in fact 3. But again, do any of us actually disagree on that point?

Well, I don't think it borders on malpractice not to cite three cases where one would suffice . . . lots of appellate courts have word limits, and sometimes, you need to weigh the importance of demonstrating ample authority against the need to be terse.

In any case, it may be a bad decision, but it's certainly not ipso facto malpractice, IMO.

One cite may suffice but it may not. I deal often with opposing counsel who state propositions of law with numerous inaccurate/improper cites to support them. It is important for me to let the judge know that my interpretation of law not only has an accurate citation supporting it, but there are 3 courts and not just 1 which also agree with my position. If I were to respond to counsel's 5-case cite with just 1 cite of my own, I take the risk that the judge is in a hurry to decide this motion, does not follow up to check the accuracy of the cites, and incorrectly believes that counsel's position is better supported by the law than mine. That's not good advocacy in my opinion. Maybe not malpractice, but not good advocacy in any case.

I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't use pinpoint cites, except with a "see generally" signal. Any time I see a general cite I just assume that the author hasn't read the cited authority, has copied someone else's work without checking its accuracy, and/or is sloppy and careless.

Apparently "B" believes that Justices O'Connor and Scalia cite authorities without reading them, copy other people's work without checking its accuracy, and are sloppy and careless. See my blog for further info.

At least I know I'm in good company. Here's to you, Antonin and Sandra!

I guess everyone has an opinion on this issue...
Pin cites are essential... for no other reason than it makes my job easier when I have to draft an order. I can find quotes faster and locate the exact source of the law.
As far as string cites go, it really depends. If you've got one strong, binding case from the "big boss" (state supreme court or federal appeals court), that equates to binding precedent to me, especially if it is a recent case. Old, long string cites don't change my mind at all. However, if your proposition is "a majority of courts have discarded the tort of alienation of affections in the recent past," then you better have a helluva lot of cites to support that... especially from jurisdictions that I "like" (close geographically, similar judicial philosophy, etc.). In the same way, if you're citing a case from another jurisdiction as persuasive authority because it's directly on point or you like it's flowery language, then there should be an "accord" cite to my jurisdiction if at all possible.
I can understand why Mr. Garner (one of my personal heroes) would hate the string cite-- it interrupts the flow of the writing, it generally wastes space, and if it is a citation for a menial proposition ("the standard of review is...") it's completely useless. Context, context context.

Oh, in "The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style" s. 8.6(e), Bryan Garner writes:
"One or two citations are sufficient if the law is controlling or well established. Citing a string of lower-court citations adds no weight to an appellate court's decision. Neither does citing a string of authorities that repeat a well-established point of law...."

(P.S. for anyone who hasn't seen The Redboook, I would highly suggest it. It's a fantastic resource for legal writing.)