Citations - Final Review

Question 1

Basic Case Names:

C.A. Nelson, appellee, versus City of Las Vegas, appellant.

Answer 1

Nelson v. City of Las Vegas

Question 2

Basic Case Names:

The Estate of Mary Sanders.

Answer 2

Est. of Sanders

Question 3

Basic Case Names:

Gerald Walker, III and Ada Walker, Plaintiffs, versus Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Defendant.

Answer 3

Walker v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Question 4

Basic Case Names:

Sabine Pilot Service, Incorporated, appellant, versus Michael Andrew Hauck, appellee.

Answer 4

Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck

Question 5

Basic Case Names:

Steven J. Hatfill versus The New York Times Company.

Answer 5

Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co.

Question 6

Basic Case Names:

A Supreme Court of Louisiana case, The State of Louisiana versus Clarence Harris, Jr.

Answer 6

State v. Harris

Question 7

Basic Case Names:

The New Mexico Department of Health versus Theresa Ulibarri.

Answer 7

N.M. Dep’t of Health v. Ulibarri

Question 8

Basic Case Names:

In the Matter of Lloyd’s Insurance Company.

Answer 8

In re Lloyd’s Ins. Co.

Question 9

Basic Case Names:

Tex Smith d/b/a The Harmonica Man versus Arthur Godfrey, et al.

Answer 9

Smith v. Godfrey

Question 10

Basic Case Names:

A federal case filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, The State of Missouri ex rel. Wear versus Springfield Gas & Electric Company, Incorporated.

Answer 10

Missouri ex rel. Wear v. Springfield Gas & Elec. Co.

Question 11

Basic Case Names:

American Airlines, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee versus The United States of America, Defendant-Appellant.

Answer 11

Am. Airlines, Inc. v. United States

Question 12

Basic Case Names:

William Mercurio, George Bachman, and Thomas Romeo versus The United States of America.

Answer 12

Mercurio v. United States

Question 13

Basic Case Names:

Columbia Broadcasting System, petitioner, versus The Democratic National Committee, respondent. [Hint: Columbia Broadcasting System is the television network CBS and is commonly referred to by its initials.]

Answer 13

CBS v. Democratic Nat’l Comm.

Question 14

Basic Case Names:

Helen Palsgraf, appellant, versus The Long Island Railroad Company, appellee.

Answer 14

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

Question 15

Kelly Harrington, Petitioner v. Joshua Richter, Respondent, a United States Supreme Court Case reported in volume 562, page 86, of United States Reports.

Answer 15

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86

Question 16

Dwayne Hawkins versus Superior Motors, Incorporated, a Supreme Court of Tennessee case reported in volume 999, page 769, of Southwestern Reporter, Second Series.

Answer 16

Hawkins v. Superior Motors, Inc., 999 S.W.2d 769

Question 17

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., a Virginia corporation, versus Toyama Partners, L.L.C., a California company. This is a federal district court case reported in volume 875, page 1058, of Federal Supplement, Second Series. [Note: for this Exercise, retain the periods in “L.L.C.”]

Answer 17

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyama Partners, L.L.C., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1058

Question 18

Frank E. Midkiff, Richard Lyman, Jr., Hung Wo Ching …, Plaintiff-Appellants, versus Paul A. Tom, Tony Taniguchi, … Defendants-Appellees, a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and reported in volume 702, page 788, of Federal Reporter, Second Series.

Answer 18

Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 788

Question 19

Skarin Custom Homes, Incorporated versus Joseph Ross and Stephanie Ross, a case decided by the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, and reported in volume 409, page 1172, of Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series

Answer 19

Skarin Custom Homes, Inc. v. Ross, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1172

Question 20

Thomas Lunneborg, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. My Fun Life, a Delaware corporation, Edwards E. Edwards and Carrie L. Edwards, Defendants-Appellants, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Idaho and reported in volume 421, page 187, of Pacific Reporter, Third Series.

Answer 20

Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 421 P.3d 187

Question 21

Catherine Johnner versus Percy D. Mims, a case decided by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, of New York and reported in volume 850, page 786, of New York Supplement, Second Series.

Answer 21

Johnner v. Mims, 850 N.Y.S.2d 786

Question 22

Mitel Networks Corporation versus Facebook, Incorporated, a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and reported in volume 943, page 463, of Federal Supplement, Second Series.

Answer 22

Mitel Networks Corp. v. Facebook, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 463

Question 23

Katie A. Schrodt, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Joseph D. Schrodt, Defendant and Appellant. This is a Supreme Court of North Dakota opinion issued as the 64th opinion of 2022. You may assume that no reporter information is available yet for this case.

Answer 23

Schrodt v. Schrodt, 2022 ND 64.

Question 24

Nichols versus Ziriax. This is a Supreme Court of Oklahoma opinion issued as the 76th opinion of 2022. You may assume that no reporter information is available yet for this case. You wish to direct your reader’s attention to specific material in paragraph 7 of the opinion.

Answer 24

Nichols v. Ziriax, 2022 OK 76, ¶ 7.

Question 25

Nichole Alward versus Emery Johnston, M.D., a case from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, decided December 21, 2018, and reported at volume 199, page 1190, of Atlantic Reporter, Third Series.

Answer 25

Alward v. Johnston, 199 A.3d 1190 (N.H. 2018).

Question 26

Willie Peevyhouse and Lucille Peevyhouse versus Garland Coal & Mining Company, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma on December 11, 1962, and reported at volume 382, page 109, of Pacific Reporter, Second Series.

Answer 26

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109 (Okla. 1962).

Question 27

Matthew Samsill versus Dave & Buster’s of Massachusetts, Inc. and Jon Lucia, a case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts on December 6, 2021, and reported at volume 179, page 1125, of North Eastern Reporter, Third Series. [Note: the Answer to this problem has been updated since the print publication was published.]

Answer 27

Samsill v. Dave & Buster’s of Mass., Inc., 179 N.E.3d 1125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021).

Question 28

Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. versus John J. Reynolds, Inc., et al., a case decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 6, 1959, and reported at volume 178, page 655, of Federal Supplement.

Answer 28

Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co. v. John J. Reynolds, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 655 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Question 29

L & M Enterprises, Incorporated, versus BEI Sensors & Systems Company, a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on March 30, 1999, and reported at volume 801, page 1001, of Federal Supplement, Second Series.

Answer 29

L & M Enters., Inc. v. BEI Sensors & Sys. Co., 801 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Kan. 1999).

Question 30

George E. Mercier and Susan Y. Mercier versus Sheraton International, Inc, a/k/a ITT Sheraton International, Inc., a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 22, 1992, and reported at volume 981, page 1345, of Federal Reporter, Second Series.

Answer 30

Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l, Inc., 981 F.2d 1345 (1st Cir. 1992).

Question 31

In the immediately preceding sentence of a legal memorandum, without an intervening cite, you cited to Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). You next wish to cite to page 616 of the case.

Answer 31

Id. at 616.

Question 32

Two paragraphs later, after citing to other cases and a statute, you wish to cite again to page 616 of Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). You have been referring to the case in text as “Mitsubishi Motors.”

Answer 32

Mitsubishi Motors, 473 U.S. at 616.

Question 33

In the next sentence, you would like to cite to pages 328 and 329 of Nat’l Iranian Oil again. No intervening cites appear between the citation in Problem #3 above and the current cite.

Answer 33

Id.

Question 34

On page 78 of a brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, you cite to United States v. Facebook, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 3d 105 (D.D.C. 2020). In the same general discussion, on page 82 of your brief, you would like to refer to this case again, focusing your reader’s attention on information beginning on page 110 and continuing on page 111 of the court’s opinion. You have cited to other cases in the interim.

Answer 34

Facebook, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 3d at 110-11.

Question 35

You wish to formulate a short form, not “id.,” for information found on the first page of Garland v. Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022), in a discussion in which you cite several U.S. Supreme Court cases. [Hint: Merrick Garland is the acting Attorney General of the United States and has been named in many civil rights cases.]

Answer 35

Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. at 2057.

Question 36

You wish to formulate a short form, not “id.”, for information found on page 281 and continuing on page 282 of United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006). You last cited Stewart on the previous page of your brief.

Answer 36

Stewart, 433 F.3d at 281-82.

Question 37

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Answer 37

U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Question 38

Section 442(c) of title 37 of the current United States Code.

Answer 38

37 U.S.C. § 442(c).

Question 39

Subsection (a)(6) of section 523 of title 11 of the current United States Code.

Answer 39

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Question 40

Rule 7(b) of the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Answer 40

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b).

Question 41

Rule 804(a) of the current Federal Rules of Evidence.

Answer 41

Fed. R. Evid. 804(a).

Question 42

Section 231v(a) through (c) of title 45 of the current United States Code. These subsections appear in their entirety in the 2023 Supp. IV to the 2018 main volume.

Answer 42

45 U.S.C. § 231v(a)-(c) (Supp. IV 2023).

Question 43

In a discussion of the 2012 version of certain federal tax law provisions, cite section 4401(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, title 26 of the current United States Code, published in 2018. Use the special citation form for federal taxation materials.

Answer 43

I.R.C. § 4401(b).

Question 44

Joseph Sorrentino, Plaintiff, versus Salvador A. Godinez, Defendant. This case was decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on January 23, 2015. This case is reported in volume 777, page 410, of Federal Reporter, Third Series.

Answer 44

Sorrentino v. Godinez, 777 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2015).

Question 45

On page 23 of your brief, you cited to the same case. On page 26 of your brief, you would like to refer to this case again, focusing your reader’s attention on information beginning on page 415 of the opinion and continuing on to page 416. You have cited to other cases (in the same reporter) in the interim.

Answer 45

Sorrentino, 777 F.3d at 415-16.

Question 46

Section 11.011 of Vernon’s Texas Natural Resources Code Annotated, published by West. You have located the code on Westlaw, which reports that it is current “through the 2021 Regular Session of the 87th Legislature.”

Answer 46

Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 11.011 (West, Westlaw through 2021 Reg. Sess. of 87th Leg.).

Question 47

You wish to cite again to section 11.011 of Vernon’s Texas Natural Resources Code Annotated in the next paragraph of your brief. You have cited two cases since your last reference to section 11.011.

Answer 47

Nat. Res. § 11.011.

Question 48

Leta Fay Ford, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Revlon, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Arizona on February 24, 1987. It is reported in volume 153, page 38, of the Arizona Reports, and in volume 734, page 580, of Pacific Reporter, Second Series. You are citing this case in a brief to a California state court.

Answer 48

Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1987).

Question 49

Section 3129(a) of title 7 of the United States Code, published in the 2018 main volume.

Answer 49

7 U.S.C. § 3129(a).

Question 50

Section 8, clause 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Answer 50

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

Question 51

One paragraph later, after citing to a federal statute, you wish to cite again to section 8, clause 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Answer 51

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

Question 52

Ernest E. Jones, Terrence A. Larsen, and Herbert Lotman versus Raymond W. Smith and Peter S. Strawbridge. This case was decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on January 6, 1999. It is reported in volume 734, page 862, of Atlantic Reporter, Second Series. The citation follows a direct quotation of material found on page 865 of the opinion.

Answer 52

Jones v. Smith, 734 A.2d 862, 865 (Pa. 1999).

Question 53

Paula Corbin Jones, Plaintiff, versus William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson, Defendants. This case was decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, on July 29, 1999. It appears in volume 57, page 719, of Federal Supplement, Second Series.

Answer 53

Jones v. Clinton, 57 F. Supp. 2d 719 (E.D. Ark. 1999).

Question 54

In the next sentence, without any intervening cites, you would like to direct your reader’s attention to information found on page 723.

Answer 54

Id. at 723.

Question 55

The current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 20(a), dealing with permissive joinder of parties.

Answer 55

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

Question 56

Section 4711 of title 16 of the Delaware Code Annotated published by LexisNexis. You have located the code on Lexis+, which reports that it is current “through the 84 Del. Laws, ch. 6.”

Answer 56

Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4711 (Lexis+ through 84 Del. Laws, ch. 6).

Question 57

The State of Connecticut versus Ravon Donald. This case was decided by the Supreme Court of Connecticut on May 2, 2017. It is reported in volume 325, page 346, of Connecticut Reports and in volume 157, page 1134, of Atlantic Reporter, Third Series. Assume that you are citing this case in a brief to the Supreme Court of Connecticut and that this court requires parallel citations to both the state and the regional reporters.

Answer 57

State v. Donald, 325 Conn. 346, 157 A.3d 1134 (2017).

Question 58

In a brief to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, you have previously cited to the case in Problem 14. You wish to cite to this case again on the next page of your brief after several intervening cites to cases that are also in both Connecticut Reports and Atlantic Reporter, Third Series. You wish to direct your reader’s attention on information contained on page 350 of the state reporter and 1138 of the regional reporter.

Answer 58

Donald, 325 Conn. at 350, 157 A.3d at 1138.

Question 59

Section 3-2-201(a)-(c) of Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated, published by LexisNexis in 2015.

Answer 59

Ark. Code Ann. § 3-2-201(a)-(c) (2015).

Question 60

In the next sentence, you wish to cite to just subsection (b) of the Arkansas statute. You have not included any intervening citations.

Answer 60

Id. § 3-2-201(b).

Question 61

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill et al. This case was decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 19, 1985. It is reported in volume 470, page 532, of United States Reports; in volume 105, page 1487 of Supreme Court Reporter; and in volume 84, page 494 of Lawyers’ Edition, Second Series.

Answer 61

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).

Question 62

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(i).

Answer 62

Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(i).