>>I've said this before and I know it's been pointed out by others before such as Tim Young, but case names are not the same as the title of a book. NAQT does not over-underline, I don't understand why both circuit events and even official ACF events still do so. The names of the parties often become reversed on the way up the ladder. Plus, the parties change. Further, it often makes a difference if you're citing to a state or regional reporter. Bakke should be good enough. Dartmouth should be good enough. Cohens should be good enough. Miranda should be good enough, etc. After having seen this pointed out several times in the past 2 years, I think I'm going to start being a pain in the rear and refusing to give more than the information required for identification of a case and then protest if it's ruled wrong. I don't understand why this is so difficult a concept for packet authors and editors to understand.>> I agree with the concept of only requiring the unusual party rather than also asking for the prison warden, state attorney general, or whomever was the respondent in question. However, there are some askable cases where neither party's name is unique to that case--what do you do about Reno v. ACLU or New York Times v. Sullivan? I'm really asking here, as I've spent some time trying to place my underlining on these cases in the past. --M.W.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST