Legal citation

Legal citation is the practice of crediting and referring to authoritative documents and sources. The most common sources of authority cited are court decisions (cases), statutes, regulations, government documents, treaties, and scholarly writing.

Typically, a proper legal citation will inform the reader about a source's authority, how strongly the source supports the writer's proposition, its age, and other, relevant information. This is an example citation to a United States Supreme Court court case:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 480 (1965).

This citation gives helpful information about the cited authority to the reader.

  • The names of the parties are Griswold and Connecticut. Generally, the name of the plaintiff (or, on appeal, petitioner) appears first, whereas the name of the defendant (or, on appeal, respondent) appears second. Thus, the case is Griswold v. Connecticut.
  • The case is reported in volume 381 of the United States Reports (abbreviated "U.S."). The case begins on page 479 of that volume of the reporter. The authoritative supporting material for the writer's proposition is on page 480. The reference to page 480 is referred to as a "pin cite" or "pinpoint".
  • The Supreme Court decided the case. Because the U.S. Reports publish only cases that the Supreme Court decides, the court deciding the case may be inferred from the reporter.
  • The authority supports the proposition directly because it is not qualified with a signal. If it had offered only indirect or inferential support for the proposition, the author should have preceded the cite with a qualifying signal such as see or cf.
  • The authority is from 1965, so either the clear and enduring wisdom of this source has been venerated by the test of time, or this clearly dated relic of another era is obviously ripe for revision, depending upon the needs of the writer.

Concurring and dissenting opinions are also published alongside the Court's opinion. For example, to cite to the opinion in which Justices Stewart and Black dissent, the citation would appear as the following:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart & Black, JJ., dissenting).

This citation is very similar to the citation to the Court's opinion. The two key differences are the pin cite, page 527 here, and the addition of the dissenting justices' names in a parenthetical following the date of the case.

Of course, legal citation in general and case citation in particular can become much more complicated.

Citation by country

Some countries have a de facto citation standard that has been adopted by most of the country's institutions.

Australian legal citation usually follows the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (commonly known as AGLC)
Canadian legal citation usually follows the Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation (commonly called the McGill Guide)
German legal citation
OSCOLA Ireland [6] is the system of legal citation for Ireland.[7] OSCOLA Ireland was adapted from the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities. It is edited by a group of Irish academics, in consultation with both the OSCOLA Ireland Editorial Advisory Board, and the OSCOLA Editorial Advisory Board.
Dutch legal citation follows the Leidraad voor juridische auteurs[8] (commonly known as Leidraad)
United Kingdom
The Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (commonly known as OSCOLA) is the modern authority on citation of United Kingdom legislation. Guidance for UK government drafters is provided in Statutory Instrument Practice.[9]

U. S. legal citation follows one of:

  • Bluebook standard
  • ALWD Citation Manual
  • Tanbook (New York State Official Reports Style Manual)
  • Greenbook (Texas Style Manual, supplements Bluebook)
  • Maroonbook (University of Chicago Law School)

A number of U.S. states have adopted individual public domain citations standards.[10]

See also


  1. Retrieved November 29, 2009. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. Mohammad Hamdaqa and A. Hamou-Lhadj, "Citation Analysis: An Approach for Facilitating the Understanding and the Analysis of Regulatory Compliance Documents", In Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Information Technology, Las Vegas, USA
  3. "E-Discovery Special Report: The Rising Tide of Nonlinear Review". Hudson Legal. Archived from the original on July 3, 2012. Retrieved July 1, 2012. by Cat Casey and Alejandra Perez
  4. "What Technology-Assisted Electronic Discovery Teaches Us About The Role Of Humans In Technology - Re-Humanizing Technology-Assisted Review". Forbes. Retrieved July 1, 2012.
  5. Liu, John S.; Chen, Hsiao-Hui; Ho, Mei Hsiu-Ching; Li, Yu-Chen (December 1, 2014). "Citations with different levels of relevancy: Tracing the main paths of legal opinions". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (12): 2479–2488. doi:10.1002/asi.23135. ISSN 2330-1643.
  6. "OSCOLA Ireland". Retrieved November 27, 2016.
  7. Schweppe, Jennifer; Kennedy, Rónán; Donnelly, Lawrence (2016). How to think, write and cite Key skills for Irish law students (2nd ed.). Round Hall.
  8. "Kluwer - Leidraad". Retrieved November 16, 2013.
  9. "Statutory Instrument Practice 4th edition". OPSI website. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. November 2006. pp. 23–24 (s. 2.7) and 25–28 (s. 2.11). Archived from the original on December 11, 2006. Retrieved October 17, 2009. External link in |work= (help)
  10. "Universal Citation". Retrieved August 7, 2008.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.