Comments

• 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 biz…

  in incorrect subsequent case citation - Chicago style Comment by erinkavon April 6, 2011
• 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 cit…

  in incorrect subsequent case citation - Chicago style Comment by erinkavon December 2, 2010
• It looks the same in full note style.

  in incorrect subsequent case citation - Chicago style Comment by erinkavon November 9, 2010