Bluebook law review/ backreferences- HELP
This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.
I have something in place now that extracts the necessary data from the US Code, so the maintenance problem has been solved. Just a matter of working out what to do with it now ...
MLZ has seen quite a bit of tidying up in the last month, it might be worth a look again when you have time. I've added a pull-down menu for jurisdictions, so you no longer need to type in that finger-aching-awkward {:jurisdiction:us;federal;ak} stuff.
Many thanks as always for your work. I have been using the new materials and have many questions, will take them one at a time.
First, the amlaw style sometimes seems to truncate titles after any punctuation, like a colon. Is there any way to change this ? If not I guess you can override each one individually in abbrevs, is that right?
Thanks
I've just put up a fresh release of MLZ that ignores the Short Title field. Update MLZ and see if that straightens things up. You can still control the content of the title via the Abbreviation Filter.
I'm planning to use the Short Title field for a slightly different purpose -- to hold the "main title", so that we can distinguish main from subtitles. Disabling recognition of the field as the "short" form of the title is consistent with that, so if this works for you we'll make the change permanent.
I did try to update MLZ to no effect on this issue. Is there any way I can be sure I have succeeded in updating? I cannot find a way of checking the release date of MLZ when I look at the Zotero interface
(similarly before I posted this I tried to check for new releases on the citation stylist website and could not figure out how to do so)
On a related matter, can MLZ be used with Standalone Zotero? I was unable to install it
I thought that last month I had gotten the Extra field for jurisdictions to work with your clever popup but now it does not
This is what the popup put in Extra
{:jurisdiction:us;federal;il.northern}
This is how the cite came out
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F.Supp. 1264 (us;federal;il.northern 1986).
Was there anything else I was supposed to do?
Many thanks
You can check the MLZ version via gear menu -> About Zotero (which should probably say "About MLZ", come to think of it).
The pace of new releases has slowed down, so it would make sense to announce them in the site's news feed. I'll start doing that going forward.
A Standalone version of MLZ isn't yet available. I have built trial versions for Linux, and it works, but I don't have the tools needed to build for all three supported platforms, so I haven't released it. It only needs someone to build the clients from the source archive.
The abbreviation list controls all instances, right, not just the first
Item (1) should be covered automatically. If it doesn't work at your end, send along steps to reproduce and I'll take another look.
Item (2) is handled by the Hereinafter list in the Abbreviation Filter. If you set a name for a case there, it should turn up in subsequent references.
(2)Circuit courts do not appear in the popup menu (didn't before either)Looking at the code I see that abbrevs for Circuit Courts are listed, but while Dist Courts seem to be places, Circuits are institutions. Does this mean that I should treat them differently or is the issue in the code?
--If close down, then I open an existing document created in AmLaw,it asks me what style to use (doesn't seem to remember) and not only are old abbreviations gone, but when I select Journal full versions of journal names are not shown on the menu to give me the option to create new abbreviations.
--If I create a new document it works fine, at least within a session
As to Circuits -- I don' understand the issue, probably because I have not thought about enough different kinds of Courts. At the moment, how would I get the Circuit Court to show up in a parenthetical? If there is a way, I may be able tell you which I like better, that way or the way the District Court now works
The Court field does not show up in the parenthetical or anywhere else, and as I recall has never worked properly in any style of Bluebook. I had assumed that the purpose of your Extra material was to fix this, so I would assume that the Circuit and other court problems should be dealt with the same way, but perhaps there are issues I don't know about.
The extra details that this throws up in the citation can be controlled through the Abbreviation Filter. Details will be in the text of the MLZ book, due out shortly.
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/1738/samplecase.png
(U.S. 7th Cir. 1989)
Is there a workaround pending the final version?
(2) A sort of related problem. Suppose I have only one case cite in a document, and Extra contains
{:jurisdiction:us;federal;il.northern}
When I go to abbrevs, Journals and Reporters I get FOUR choices for FSupp, one labelled default, one us, one federal and one nd ill. I don't think this serves a purpose and it clutters the menu
Thanks!
!jurisdiction>>>F.3d
This will suppress the jurisdiction whenever that journal is used.
For (2), I take your point. I'd like to leave it as it stands for now, though, pending further (complaints and) suggestions from the field.
The entries differ in scope, so setting the abbreviation in "default" will apply it everywhere, regardless of jurisdiction, setting it in "us" applies it for all US sources but ignores it for secondary sources and other jurisdictions, etc. A simple solution would be to present only the most specific jurisdiction, but that would require separate fixes for every state or district.
A better approach might be to present the sublist in collapsed form, with a twisty that expands it for more detailed editing. There might be other approaches too, I'm open to suggestions.
If there is a good reason to want diff abbreviations, I understand. I assumed it was some sort of unintended byproduct.
Any ideas about the hereinafter problem (2 posts ago)?
I'm pretty sure that this will be a style issue. If the Hereinafter variable is not tested for existence by an item, it won't make it into the list. Probably there are holes in the coverage, and that's causing items to drop out.
The way forward is the same -- if you can send me a sample item (or two) I can dig into the style and see what's missing.
Is the best workaround to just treat this as a Circuit Court opinion as discussed above? But that of course deprives us of all your work in the Extra menu.
It wouldn't take much to add the Circuit Courts to the menu, if that would be convenient and less confusing.