incorrect subsequent case citation - Chicago style

erinkavon
In Chicago style (note without bibliography), the first time I cite a case it comes out correctly.

For example:

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963)

However, in subsequent citations, the note always includes the volume number, which is not necessary. For example:

Ibid., 372.
or
Douglas v. California, vol. 372.

Anybody know what's going on here?
  • adamsmith
    yeah - that's purposefully written in the style. I just don't know for what purpose... clearly doesn't make sense here
    Would this make sense for other types of items?

    Also, I don't have much time to check, but how does this look in the full note style?
  • erinkavon
    It looks the same in full note style.
  • erinkavon
    edited December 2, 2010
    I can't think of a situation in which this would make sense for other types of items...

    If this format is purposefully written in the style, how do we go about changing it? Or, if it is necessary for some sources, can we change it for case citations?
  • adamsmith
    I usually leave all CMOS style issues for Elena/erazlogo, who has written the styles and knows the manual very well - but I haven't seen her around for a while - I was hoping she'd chime in.
  • erinkavon
    With the recent updates, the problem persists, but in a slightly different form. Now subsequent citations come out looking like this:

    Douglas v. California, 372:.

    It no longer says "Vol." but the number still shows up and there is a bizarre colon following the number. Does anyone have any thoughts about how to correct this?

    Thanks!
  • adamsmith
    edited April 6, 2011
    I'll guess I'll have to fix this - I really wish erazlogo would still do this - CMoS seems to me like this fragile, artful sculpture, where anytime I touch it something breaks... give me a couple of weeks until I'm through with my backlog of styles
  • fbennett
    @erikavon: From the style, it looks like this should only happen when the item is type "Book". (If that's so, we know the issue, and can file a fix with confidence.)
  • erazlogo
    @adamsmith I can do this if you like, to make sure that everything else is working--let me know if you already fixed it.
  • erazlogo
    @fbennett: yes this was added for multivolume books only
  • fbennett
    @erazlogo, You've probably seen the traffic already, but just in case: That function needs to use a choose element with if variable="locator", rather than a group. The implicit conditional in a group is now satisfied (i.e. evaluates true and renders) if anything inside a nested group renders. So even without a locator, the deeper content will render in that function if (say) the volume variable has a value in that function.
  • adamsmith
    Thanks Elena - I haven't touched this yet, so if you could that'd be wonderful.
  • erazlogo
    edited April 8, 2011
    @adamsmith fbennett fixed it (thanks!). I will look over the Chicago styles this weekend to see what else is not working, if anything. The SBL style is based on Chicago and will need to be changed also.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.