2

Say you want to list 3 sections of the same statute in the table of authorities in your pleading including §123 and §124 as well as §125(a) and §125(b); will you list them each or will you list one only or what combination and why?

Primarily interested under California Style Manual 4th Edition, but if you have any insight for Bluebook, please share, too!

1
  • Are you writing something you are filing yourself or are you preparing something for another attorney? If the former, my unsolicited but sincere advice is to invest in a Bluebook if the latter you should ask said attorney how he or she prefers it or, better yet, find one he or she has filed before (in same jurisdiction) and prepare it that way.
    – A.fm.
    Jun 24 at 3:33
1

I don't have my Bluebook anymore, but the way I remember learning it is to list each section as an individual entry, but not subsections. So your TOA would look like this:

  • §123
  • §124
  • §125

As far as I know, the California manual doesn't address tables of authorities.

8
  • @@bdb484 Thank you so very much! The only principle I am aware of in the context of the California Manual is that you don’t list them in order of relevance, but alphabetically. I probably even saved a comparative guide I should probably share a link to
    – kisspuska
    Jun 24 at 1:59
  • @@bdb484 Would there be a reasonability limit to how many sections of the same division you cite, or a rule even?
    – kisspuska
    Jun 24 at 2:40
  • 1
    This is common practice, unless the bulk of the brief is about a handful of subsections (e.g. within a very long tax or regulatory statute) that are discussed in different portions of the brief. Similarly, when citing to cases in a table of authorities, you should omit pinpoint page/section citations found in the body text citation to the case.
    – ohwilleke
    Jun 24 at 21:21
  • 1
    I think he's saying that the way I laid it out is the common practice, but that one might be more specific in the table of authorities if the brief is essentially targeted at a single statute and goes into serious detail on a variety of subsections.
    – bdb484
    Jun 25 at 18:13
  • 1
    @bdb484 This s precisely what I meant to say.
    – ohwilleke
    Jun 25 at 19:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.