Tag: citations

Decluttering Citations to Court Documents

You are drafting your opposition memorandum or response brief.  That means directly engaging arguments advanced by the opposing party, which requires you to cite where they made those arguments in their motion.  That citation usually looks something like this:

Plaintiffs next argue that they were entitled to 30 days’ advance written notice and opportunity to cure under Section 3.  See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment at pp. 11-13.  That assertion is false and violates straightforward rules of contract interpretation.

There’s nothing wrong with this citation.  We see it all the time in different forms.  But notice how it slows down the read and clutters up the text.  Now consider the same excerpt with a mid-sentence citation:

Plaintiffs next argue (at 11-13) that they were entitled to 30 days’ advance written notice and opportunity to cure under Section 3.  That assertion is false and violates straightforward rules of contract interpretation. 

This type of citation ensures a much smoother ride and accomplishes the same result.  You can also use it to refer to your own filings, as in a reply:

As we argued in our motion (at 7), Utah case law mandates this result …

Read any sampling of briefs from the top flight appellate attorneys and you will see that this is how they do it. It’s also a preferred citation method in the Solicitor General’s Style Guide. There are, of course, times when a direct, old school citation is needed—such as when citing to multiple different court documents or in multi-party cases to avoid confusion.  You’ll know it when you see it. But most of the time, this should be your go to.  Smooth. Bold. Refreshing.

The Citation Wars: Cleaning up Quotations – Part 3

I wrote in a post back in January 2018 that the Utah Court of Appeals had joined the growing number of courts across the nation using the parenthetical (cleaned up).  In a nutshell, (cleaned up) is used “to indicate that internal quotation marks, alterations, and/or citations have been omitted from a quotation.”  State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, ¶ 9 n.2.  A few months later, as I explained in this post, the Utah Court of Appeals adopted the parenthetical (quotation simplified) in place of (cleaned up).  

The court of appeals explained that (quotation simplified) was now part of its internal style guide.  See State v. Gonzales-Bejarno, 2018 UT App 60, ¶ 12 n.3.  But Judge Mortensen remained steadfast in using (cleaned up) even after that pronouncement.  See, e.g., Warrick v. Property Reserve, Inc., 2018 UT App 197, ¶¶ 6, 12, 18, and 19 (using (cleaned up)).   

The matter was ripe for the Utah Supreme Court to weigh in.  It now has. And the winner is (cleaned up).  See Salt Lake City v. Kidd, 2019 UT 4, ¶ 14.  

Though I have used (quotation simplified) in briefs to the Utah Court of Appeals, given the widespread use of (cleaned up) and the Utah Supreme Court’s apparent adoption of the parenthetical, it is likely the better choice.  And if you’re still on the fence about whether to use the parenthetical at all, remember that the Bluebook gobbledygook—(citing this) (quoting that) (alternations original) (blah blah blah)—counts against your allotted number of words and lengthens each page of your argument with unnecessary verbiage and clutter.  Get on board.  


(Quotation Simplified)

As I wrote in a post back in January, in State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, the Utah Court of Appeals joined the growing number of courts using the parenthetical “(cleaned up)” to “clean up” citations to quoted material. A few months after Cady, in State v. Gonzales-Bejarno, 2018 UT App 60, the court used the parenthetical “quotation simplified” in place of “cleaned up.”  Id. ¶ 12. With a nod to Cady, it noted, “[t]he court’s internal style guide has adopted the parenthetical “quotation simplified” in the spirit of the nascent “cleaned up” parenthetical.” Gonzales-Bejarno, 2018 UT App 60, ¶ 12 n.3.

Since then, the court has been liberal in its use of the parenthetical, as shown in the following cases:

  • Kirkham v. McConkie, 2018 UT App 100
  • State v. Guzman, 2018 UT App 93
  • True v. UDOT, 2018 UT App 86
  • State v. Norton, 2018 UT App 82
  • State v. Brocksmith, 2018 UT App 76
  • State v. Peraza, 2018 UT App 68
  • Pulham v. Kirsling, 2018 UT App 65
  • State v. York, 2018 UT App 90
  • Gerwe v. Gerwe, 2018 UT App 75
  • State v. Whitbeck, 2018 UT App 88
  • Palmer v. St. George City Council, 2018 UT App 94
  • NPEC LLC v. Miller, 2018 UT App 85
  • Berrett v. State, 2018 UT App 55
  • State v. Becker, 2018 UT App 81
  • Blackhawk Townhouses Owners Ass’n v. J.S., 2018 UT App 56
  • Munoz-Madrid v. Carlos-Moran, 2018 UT App 95
  • State v. Rinehart, 2018 UT App 87
  • State v. Mooers, 2018 UT App 74
  • Basin Auto Paint Specialists Inc. v. Ultimate Autobody & Accessories LLC, 2018 UT App 72
  • Boyle v. Clyde Snow & Sessions PC, 2018 UT App 69

So even as “cleaned up” grows in popularity with courts across the country, “quotation simplified” has become the parenthetical of choice in the Utah Court of Appeals for cleaning up quotations.

(Cleaned up) Lands in Utah

How do you reduce word counts, remove extraneous information, and declutter your briefs?  Simple.  Clean up your parentheticals with (cleaned up).

On January 11, 2018, the Utah Court of Appeals issued State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, and in the process joined the growing number of courts climbing on-board the (cleaned up) citation movement.  See State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, ¶ 10.  At paragraph 10 of its opinion, the court quoted from the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719.  The quote in the Bagnes opinion was this:

we may reverse only when “it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged.” State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 985 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the evidence itself is deferential. See State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1212 (Utah 1993). We may reverse a verdict ―only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” Id.

So normally, your citation would look something like this: State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719 (quoting State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 985 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1212 (Utah 1993)).

Employing the (cleaned up) citation method, the quotation and accompanying citation in Cady became this:

we may reverse only when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged. Our review of the evidence itself is deferential. We may reverse a verdict only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.

State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719 (cleaned up)

Continue reading (Cleaned up) Lands in Utah