|
Real litigators don't need citations.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Folly posted:I just meant the abbreviations table. Uh, I don't want "committee" to get converted into whatever the bluebook abbreviation is every time I type it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Do people actually care about bluebook perfect citations? I mean, sure there are always going to be anal retentive assholes here and there that give every gently caress that all of your periods, commas, etc are perfect. I've had my fair share of rear end in a top hat bosses like that in the past, but honestly they tended to be the minority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Do people actually care about bluebook perfect citations? I mean, sure there are always going to be anal retentive assholes here and there that give every gently caress that all of your periods, commas, etc are perfect. I've had my fair share of rear end in a top hat bosses like that in the past, but honestly they tended to be the minority. Depends. A firm I worked at, some of the 4th year associates and up would be all *ewww...your bluebooking is wrong* as a means of trying to distract from the fact that they were loving idiots who didn't know how to write coherent jury instructions, or understand the difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Here, we make poo poo up as we go along and as long as it looks sort of right, no one cares. If you find yourself bagging on someone else's citation style, you're probably missing a lot of more important things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Do people actually care about bluebook perfect citations? I mean, sure there are always going to be anal retentive assholes here and there that give every gently caress that all of your periods, commas, etc are perfect. I've had my fair share of rear end in a top hat bosses like that in the past, but honestly they tended to be the minority. Bluebook perfect no, but there is definitely value to not being sloppy with things like grammar and punctuation. Mostly in perception, but having the person reading your document perceive it as having all the little details done correctly is going to subtly guide them into thinking that the big parts are right too. No one gives a gently caress if you fail to abbreviate Commissioner, but sloppy rear end cites (especially if the sloppiness makes it hard to find the source) definitely affect the reader's willingness to credit you. E: as AR said, as long as it looks right, no one cares, but that's a bar a lot of people don't make it over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
The day a judge reads any of the cases I cite to I will let you know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Bluebook perfect no, but there is definitely value to not being sloppy with things like grammar and punctuation. Mostly in perception, but having the person reading your document perceive it as having all the little details done correctly is going to subtly guide them into thinking that the big parts are right too. I was mainly talking citations themselves not the rest of the document. Two spaces after each sentence is important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Kalman posted:as long as it looks right, no one cares
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Do people actually care about bluebook perfect citations? I mean, sure there are always going to be anal retentive assholes here and there that give every gently caress that all of your periods, commas, etc are perfect. I've had my fair share of rear end in a top hat bosses like that in the past, but honestly they tended to be the minority. e: One partner refused to read a brief until it had one (or two, I forget) spaces after each period. gvibes fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Arguing with people in D&D is like trying to teach a baby calculus when its hungry and wants cheerios. That's the SCOTUS thread. Arguing with people in D&D is like trying to spoon feed peas to a baby that explosively shits in anger because it wants pudding. SlothBear posted:The day a judge reads any of the cases I cite to I will let you know. I'd be happy if opposing counsel read the cases they cite. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Find the way another case cites to your case. Copy that. If the case has never been cited, find a better case. Boom. I have killed blue book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Find the way another case cites to your case. Copy that. If the case has never been cited, find a better case. you hush about my secrets. (I'll call you tomorrow about our case together.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I'd be happy if opposing counsel read the cases they cite. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I'd be happy if opposing counsel read the cases they cite. I'd be happy if either counsel read the cases they cite, or the court rules, or the scheduling orders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
I love it when opposing counsel just reads the headnotes, cites a case quoting language about a basic legal principle, but then doesn't bother to read the court's ruling...which was ultimately that the facts of the case were completely distinguishable from the hallmark cases, such that the general legal principle did not apply...and oh yeah, the facts are almost identical to ours. I also love when completely on point case-law is ignored, allowing me to write "As this Court noted in State v. Blah blah blah, a case not cited in the defendant's brief..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I'd be happy if either counsel read the cases they cite, or the court rules, or the scheduling orders. what do I look like, a nerd?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
I picked up a bunch of applications from another examiner who is no longer with the patent office, as well as a bunch of cases from my newly-promoted supervisor. Let's just say there's a noticeable difference in quality in their respective work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I'd be happy if either counsel read the cases they cite, or the court rules, or the scheduling orders. As long as they have the correct colour covers on their brief and book of authorities 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:As long as they have the correct colour covers on their brief and book of authorities thoughts on bindings? There's one guy who staples all his briefs, and his covers are not the correct shade of blue. loving amateur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
If I worked for a judge that cared about cover colors, I could really indulge my Sir Humphrey Appleby streak. Instead, I wind up sending out notices to the tune of "you sent us a giant stack of loose paper, please get your poo poo together." Or "please send us copies of those 25 out-of-state cases you cited, because we don't have them in paper format, and I'm not printing them all off for my judge." The current pride of my office: I have three absolutely stuffed three-inch binders in my office, all judge's copies on one particular case. Several hundred pages of exhibits contained in each. I had to contact the attorney to get that ball rolling, because the clip they used to fasten the first set didn't even make it to my office before falling apart. So I get the attorney to send me those. Judge's copies of voluminous filings blah blah. A week later he files a minor motion (to consolidate, maybe?). It's three pages long. No exhibits. That judge's copy? ALSO in a binder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't oppose that, suing fax spammers is pretty righteous. In theory, yes, in practice, it's a bit of a mixed bag at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I'd be happy if either counsel read the cases they cite, or the court rules, or the scheduling orders. I wish anything could make me happy anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
I'm so pissed right now that after dominating our fantasy league all year long, I'm going to get bounced because our "playoffs" start week loving 14. I didn't even set my lineup, because what's the point? I already locked up my playoff spot. No, I didn't read the rules, gently caress off. Who starts the playoffs in week 14?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'm so pissed right now that after dominating our fantasy league all year long, I'm going to get bounced because our "playoffs" start week loving 14. I didn't even set my lineup, because what's the point? I already locked up my playoff spot. My other league starts in week 13. Two two-week rounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Somebody who used to produce our reporters didn’t understand the Bluebook at all, so for a few years, we have cases where the official citation is something like Smith, et al., v. Jones, et al.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Kalman posted:My other league starts in week 13. Two two-week rounds. COMMUNISTS
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'm so pissed right now that after dominating our fantasy league all year long, I'm going to get bounced because our "playoffs" start week loving 14. I didn't even set my lineup, because what's the point? I already locked up my playoff spot. I will be honest I probably just left whatever the default settings were 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I will be honest I probably just left whatever the default settings were I will be honest, its my own goddamn fault for not paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Oh, and don't worry - I'll go back and tally it up to see if I "would" have won, and totally convince myself that I actually did. Besides, I have my other league: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
I want to punch Adam and Gabriela in the face. Name your loving teams losers
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I want to punch Adam and Gabriela in the face. Name your loving teams losers Even worse, Gabriela's Team is my friend Stephen. He opened Yahoo fantasy football to sign up, and his wife's yahoo account was already logged in so he just went with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I want to punch Adam and Gabriela in the face. Name your loving teams losers yeah...but given they'd have to compete with Jewpacabras, I can see why they may have decided to just throw in the towel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I'd be happy if opposing counsel read the cases they cite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
reading transcript: Judge: Do you have any case law to support that position? Counsel: I have the Constitution, your honor. I imagine him puffing his chest out, raising his finger in the air, while a breeze blows his hair back, and the court's American flag starts to wave. I am also not surprised the court ruled against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Uh, I don't want "committee" to get converted into whatever the bluebook abbreviation is every time I type it. Use "committee.." or "committee--" or whatever special character you choose like you use ss (whole word only) to change into the section symbol. Edit: oh ya, now I remember. When it autocorrects and you don't want it to, I'm pretty sure you use ctrl+Y to set it back to normal and it won't try it again. Folly fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Apparently it's severe misconduct to drink on the job now? Um, what? Pro quote: quote:Particularly compelling is the testimony of the young secretary who related how the claimant would regularly send her to a nearby liquor store to buy vodka to drink in the office and this at a time when the witness was too young to legally make the purchase.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Secretary just came in to alert me to the fact one of our more "celebrity" defendants is in our waiting room being a complete douche and offered to help me get a gawk in. I accept your peace offering. Guess she's back on the Christmas gift collection list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Currently working on an ERISA case. Probably my least favorite area of the law other than Title VII.Folly posted:Use "committee.." or "committee--" or whatever special character you choose like you use ss (whole word only) to change into the section symbol. Easier just to write it out. Nobody cares if you write "publishing" instead of publ'g. I save my shortcuts for form stuff: summjstandard, mtdstandard, 1331jx, 1332jx, and stuff like that makes it way faster to finish the procedural stuff than hunting through past orders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
No, it's only severe misconduct to drink excessively on the job. quote:"excessive use of alcohol at work" by statute is an element of severe misconduct
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
*pulls obligatory prosecutor's bottle of scotch out of drawer and pours* Sounds legit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:34
|
|