I got an email recently from someone who said my including frequent citations (e.g., "People v. Smith," "State v. Smith") is a distraction when someone is reading a post.
I'm afraid that didn't really surprise me. I find it tedious to put all those short citations in, and I'm sorry if they are distracting.
He seemed to think I include them because I'm a compulsive (even nerdy) law professor type who HAS to have a citation for every statement, even when it's referring back to a case I've already cited in full.
I am enough of a compulsive (though perhaps not nerdy) law professor type to include citations for every statement I make in a law review article . . . because if I don't, the law review editors who are working on that article will insist that I do. (Sometimes they even want more than I've already included.)
I'm not, though, compulsive (or nerdy) enough to need to repeat short citations over and over in a blog post. The reason I include them is this: Very early in the history of this blog, I did a post on a case and did what I always do: Summarized the facts in the case from the court's opinion or quoted the facts as given in the opinion. All I know about the facts in a case is usually what I read in the opinion; sometimes I look for more facts in online news stories; when I do that, I cite those stories for whatever I take from them.
When I did this with the case I wrote about very early in the history of this blog, I ran across a . . . shall we say, very strange man. I got well over 40 emails from him, none of which really made any sense. He accused me of "ruining his life" (???), among other things; and some of the emails were at least implicitly threatening.
I had not included the repetitive short citations to the opinion in that post, even though it was obvious that the opinion is where the facts I referenced came from. As a defensive tactic, in an attempt to avoid encountering another person like this fellow, I began using the repetitive cites. I really doubt it would have made any difference if I had used them in the post on this case, but they make me feel better, at least.
So . . . I'm sorry for the stuttering citations. Some people just make things difficult.
ed in texas
ReplyDeleteYou, uhhh, didn't include any citations for any of your statements.
(I'll stop now)
Never underestimate the ability of a blog reader -- or a judge -- to be confused about the source of a statement on the blog or in the brief.
ReplyDeleteI for one find the citations very useful.
ReplyDeleteThanks, ed, for pointing that out . . .
ReplyDeleteGood point, Bracton . . . even though I think most of those who read this blog can probably figure out what's coming from a case and what's mine.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonymous . . . I tend to like cites myself.
ReplyDeleteNever underestimate how crazy the Crazy Internet People can be.
ReplyDeletewould footnotes help here?
ReplyDeleteah . . . footnotes . . . don't tempt me. ;->
ReplyDeleteThe meticulous citations are one of the things I appreciate most about your blog. It's only distracting if you haven't learned how to read opinions. Please don't change a thing.
ReplyDelete