This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.

This is a proposed citation style to adapt the Bluebook to the unique needs of Wikipedia. The Bluebook is the most commonly used system for legal citations in the United States, especially for legal scholarship, but also (with modifications by local rules) in judicial opinions and party briefs.

This proposal covers citations to United States legal materials–U.S. federal (and U.S. state) constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and case law. The general guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal).

The following principles explain the ways in which this Guideline differs from the Bluebook itself:

• The Bluebook prescribes rules for the citation of foreign legal materials. This Guideline does not apply to foreign legal citations (which should generally be cited according to the prevailing citation system of the relevant jurisdiction);
• The Bluebook prescribes rules for the citation of non-legal secondary sources. this Guideline permits the use of the Bluebook's citation style in articles with a U.S. legal subject-matter, but permits other citation styles to be used for secondary-sources even if the Bluebook is used for other sources;
• The Bluebook prescribes some non-citation stylistic rules. This Guideline does not incorporate those;
• The application of several Bluebook rules can only be fully ascertained when the entire article is completed. This Guideline accounts for the unique collaborative and "work-in-progress" nature of Wikipedia, and seeks to ensure that previously-added citaitions will remain accurate as new material is added by other authors over time.

Italics

The case name should be in italics. Use ((Italic title)).

Abbreviations

Article titles should be the names of the parties, as given in the official reporter, as docketed in the highest court to issue an opinion. The title should be abbreviated as follows:

• Omit all parties after the first plaintiff and the first defendant; do not use "et al."
• Abbreviate the following eight words:
  • and to &
  • Association to Ass'n
  • Brothers to Bros.
  • Company to Co.
  • Corporation to Corp.
  • Incorporated to Inc.
  • Limited to Ltd.
  • Number to No.
• Consider using acronyms/initialisms for the following, if reasonable in the circumstances:
  • Federal agencies (e.g. CIA, FCC, FDA, FEC, NLRB)
  • Nationally-known non-profit organizations that are frequent litigants (e.g. AARP, NAACP)
  • National broadcast networks (e.g. CBS)
• Do not use abbreviations from Table 6 (e.g. County to Cnty.) or Table 10 (New York to N.Y.)

Disambiguation

If two different cases have an identical name, first disambiguate with the year the opinion was published, if the year alone can differentiate the opinions. For an example disambiguation page, see United States v. Johnson.

With the exception of the first sentence and introductory infobox in an article about a legal material, all citations should be in footnotes, rather than in the text of the article.

Here are examples for how articles about reported court cases should begin:

• '''''Marbury v. Madison''''', 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803),
• '''''Roe v. Wade''''', 410 U.S. 113 (1973),

The introductory citation should include only the case citation to the last decision issued by the highest court to the issue a written opinion, rather than the entire prior and subsequent history of reported decisions (which should be included in the introductory infobox).

Generally, apply the same rules as article titles. Italicize case names in article text. Include the year of the decision in parenthesis, unless obvious or irrelevant from the context. Include the abbreviation for the deciding court (see #Case law below), unless it is the U.S. Supreme Court, or unless it is obvious or irrelevant from the context.

For example,

''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' (2000)

and,

''[[Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki]]'' (2d Cir. 2005)

"Supra note x" and "infra note y" should never be used on Wikipedia because the footnote numbering will change if any new references are added, either by the same author or any subsequent author. To require the subsequent author to update all the supra and infra references when adding new material is too high a barrier to collaboration.

Hereinafter should also not be used because the addition of another citation to the source, or the moving of blocks of text within the article, may change which footnote is the first reference to the material. Secondary sources cited in multiple footnotes should be included in the "References" section and referred to in short-form in individual footnotes.

Id. should also not be used to refer to material in the previous footnote because the addition of new sources quickly renders such footnotes inaccurate. Id. may be used in rare instances in which the same material is cited twice in the same footnote.

Many of the same purposes of supra, infra, hereinafter, and id. may be accomplished with the use of <ref name> and short-form case citations.

Generally, citations to constitutional provisions should consist of:

<Abbreviation of name of jurisdiction, in small caps> <Const., in small caps> <article, section, and clause, if applicable>.

For example, the jury and venue provisions of Article Three of the United States Constitution should be cited as:

((smallcaps|U.S. Const.)) art. III, § 2, cl. 3.

yielding:

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3.

In general

Generally, case citations should consist of:

<The party names, separated by a "v.", abbreviating common party names>, <reporter volume number> <reporter name abbreviation> <first page of case in reporter>, <page, or page range, of the material specifically cited> (<court name abbreviation, unless obvious from the reporter> <year>).

Wikilinks

Names of Supreme Court cases, as well as names of exceptionally notably lower court cases, should be wiki-linked in citations. Piped links should be used if the case name includes words abbreviated by Table 6 or Table 10. For example:

[[County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State|Cnty. of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State]] (''Oneida II''), 470 U.S. 226 (1985).

yielding:

• Cnty. of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State (Oneida II), 470 U.S. 226 (1985).

One basic example explained

For example, for Bush v. Gore:

• Only the last names are used because the parties are natural persons
• The case appears in volume 531 of the United States Reports
• The United States Reports are abbreviated "U.S."
• The first page of the case is on page 98
• The court is obvious because only the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are published in the United States Reports
• The case was decided in the year 2000

Thus, the appropriate citation is:

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

Short citations

Although "Id." may never be used in subsequent citations, short citations may be used where they preserve sufficient information, and should be used when they significantly reduce footnote clutter. The shortest citation should include the volume of the reporter, the reporter abbreviation, and the new pincite. A slightly less-short citation should also include the short name of the case, in italics.

For example, for a short citation to County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (see above), either of the following would suffice:

Oneida II, 470 U.S. at 230.

or

479 U.S. at 230.

These sites are free as in "free beer," but not necessarily free as in freedom.They often make "interesting" decisions, for example, about what portions of the United States Reports to include (e.g., they omit the reporter of decisions' syllabus or the oral arguments), or mis-label circuit court or Pennylvania state court decisions as U.S. Supreme Court decisions. There are sometimes OCR-related errors. They rarely, if ever, preserve the original type face.

• The following are comprehensive in scope, but limited in historical reach:
  • Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School
  • FindLaw
  • Justia
• OpenJurist has federal appellate cases and the U.S. Code
• Google Scholar has some case law and law review articles
• Oyez has audio of Supreme Court oral arguments
• Resource.Org has various opinions and other things

The Bluebook is copyrighted, and the current 19th edition is not freely available online. However, the core rules–applicable in the most common situations—remain virtually unchanged from the First Edition.

• LegalBlueBook, a subscription-based online version of the current Bluebook
  • Free PDFs of the 1st (1926) through 15th (1991) editions of the Bluebook