This edition of the Universal Citation Guide, which we are calling Version 2.1, is being published on the AALL Citation Formats Committee’s website for public comment.  Version 2.1 integrates the first edition of the Universal Citation Guide, which included rules for citing judicial decisions, constitutions, statutes, and administrative regulations, with rules for citing law reviews and court rules, drafts of which were published for comment in Law Library Journal in 2000.

The principal drafter of the rules for law reviews was Kathy Carlson, State Law Librarian, Wyoming State Law Library, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  The principal drafters of the rules for court rules were Mary Persyn, Law Librarian and Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law, Valparaiso, Indiana, and Kent McKeever, Director of the Law Library, Columbia University, New York City.

Sincere appreciation is due to John Joergensen, Reference Librarian, Rutgers University Law School Library School of Law, Camden, for scanning the first edition of the UCG and converting it to html, and to Kelly Browne,  Head of Reference, University of Connecticut School of Law Library, Hartford, for editing the combined texts.  Comments on Version 2.1 should be conveyed to the Committee on Citation Formats.

This book is the product of information and comments from many individuals who are too numerous to list here. These include law librarians, publishers, state and federal employees and attorneys. The Committee wishes to thank President Jim Heller, Past Presidents Pat Kehoe, Frank Houdek, and Judy Meadows, and the Executive Board of AALL for their continuing support.

The Committee on Citation Formats wishes to acknowledge its members who prepared the three original drafts. "Judicial Decisions" was drafted by Bruce Kennedy, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Law at the University of Toledo. "Statutory Law" was drafted by Lynn Foster, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. "Administrative Regulations" was drafted by Carol Billings, Director of the Law Library of Louisiana, and Paul George, Associate Librarian for Research Services at Harvard Law School.

Carol Billings, Past President of AALL, deserves special recognition. Without her fortitude during the initial turbulent stages of citation reform, neither the Report of the Task Force on Citation Formats nor this book would exist. Lynn Foster, who chaired the Task Force, also deserves special recognition. She has served the citation reform movement in many capacities, not the least of which is lead editor on this Guide and the 1998 President's Briefing on Citation Reform.

The Committee also acknowledges the leadership and commitment of Marcia J. Koslov, State Law Librarian, Wisconsin State Law Library, chair of the Committee since 1996. This Guide is a direct result of her vision that law librarians have both the knowledge and expertise to develop new citation principles.

Sincere appreciation is also due to Jim Hambleton, Kent McKeever, and Rita Reusch, who, together with Carol, Lynn, Bruce, Paul, and Marcia, constituted the "critical mass" of drafters and editors from the beginning of the Task Force to the present.

Special thanks to Michelle Brud, who gave this book its form, and to the State Bar of Wisconsin staff, particularly Laura Adell, Tod Florey, George Brown, Tom Watson, Saralee Fassbender, and Joe Swanton.
 

Words in brackets [ ] indicate where a proper name is required in a citation. Words in parentheses () denote information that should actually appear in a parenthetical.
 

Words in brackets [ ] indicate where a proper name is required in a citation. Words in parentheses () denote information that should actually appear in a parenthetical.
 

The practice of capitalizing abbreviations varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Such capitalization does not affect the accuracy of the citation. In this table, all abbreviations are capitalized.
 
 

Judicial Decisions
 

Statutes
 

Administrative Regulations
 

¹ For a detailed discussion of the many concerns of law librarians, see TASK FORCE ON CITATION FORMATS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES, REPORT (1995), reprinted in 87 L. LIBR. J. 577 (1995), and available as March 1, 1995 Report, AALL Task Force on Citation Formats [(visited May 4, 1999) <http://www.aallnet.org/committee/citation/ taskforce.html>] [hereinafter REPORT].

² Ultimately, the U.S. Judicial Conference refused to mandate use of the proposal but permitted individual courts to adopt it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did adopt the citation system for cases appearing on the Court's C.I.T.E. bulletin board (Jan. 1994).

³ The Louisiana public domain citation is based on the docket number. See, LA. S. CT. R. PT. G, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, SEC. 8. Citation of Louisiana Appellate Opinions (Adopted Dec. 17, 1993).

⁴ WIS. STATE BAR TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE COMM., PROPOSED CITATION SYSTEM FOR WISCONSIN: REPORT TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 24-25 (1994). This report and its recommendations were approved by the Wisconsin State Bar Board of Governors on June 22, 1994 [hereinafter WISCONSIN PROPOSAL].

⁵ See REPORT, supra note l, at  ¶ 5.

⁶ 26 Am. Ass'n L. LIBR. News L. 161 (1994).

⁷ See REPORT, supra note 1.

⁸ MINUTES OF THE AALL EXECUTIVE BOARD, July 13, 14, 18 & 20, 1995, at 2107-08, American Association of Law Libraries Headquarters, Chicago.

⁹ Id. at 2103.

¹⁰ See West Publishing Company v. Mead Data Central, 616 F. Supp. 1571 (D. Minn. 1985), aff'd, 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1070 (1987), in which West Publishing successfully asserted that wholesale use of its pagination by a competing online publisher would infringe West's copyright interest in the arrangement of cases in its court reports. But see, Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998), decided 12 years later, in which the 2d Circuit held that West's pagination was not protected by copyright. Cf. Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998). While now dated, for a discussion of the interrelationship between the West copyright litigation and the need for vendor-neutral citations, see James Wyman, Freeing the Law: Case Reporter Copyright and the Universal Citation, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 217 (1996).

¹¹ See generally The Bluebook, at 165 table T1. The Bluebook instructs researchers to cite to the West court reports in preference to other commercial court reports. For example, for Supreme Court cases too new to appear in the official United State Reports (U.S.), the researcher is directed to cite to the West Supreme Court Reporter (S. Ct.) in preference to all other commercial reporters. Similarly, for state cases The Bluebook directs researchers to cite to the appropriate West regional reporters unless the researcher is citing home precedent to the courts of that state.

¹² A vendor-neutral citation contains no proprietary data elements and makes no reference to a proprietary publication. Thus the reporter citation 100 F.2d 200, 201 is not vendor-neutral for two reasons. First, the citation directs a researcher to a West publication containing the case. Second, West claims a proprietary interest in its pinpoint pagination. By contrast, 100 Ark. 200, 201 is vendor-neutral because no proprietary claim clouds the use of any data element in the citation and because no private party owns the Arkansas Reports. The term "public domain citation" also appears in debates about citation reform. However, any difference between the terms "vendor-neutral citation" and "public domain citation" may not represent a useful distinction, since the absence of any proprietary control is the critical component of both concepts.

¹³ A medium-neutral citation consists of data elements which have intellectual or locational relevance without regard to the physical medium in which a document is fixed. By this test, the citation 100 Ark. 200, 201 is not medium-neutral because the data elements representing the volume and page where the case is found are relevant only in a printed medium and have no natural meaning in electronic formats. Redefining cases in medium-neutral terms is possible by assigning a chronological accession number to each case. Thus the sixth opinion issued by the United States Supreme Court in 1996 can be cited in medium-neutral terms as 1996 US 6. The data elements of this citation retain their meaning in any physical format in which the case is published.

¹⁴ For current information, consult the following Web sites: AALLNET.org and ABAnet.org.

¹⁵ See The Bluebook, supra note 11.

¹⁶ The 1996-2000 Chair of the AALL Committee on Citation Formats is Marcia J. Koslov, State Law Librarian, Wisconsin State Law Library, who can be contacted at P.O. Box 7881, Madison, WI 53707-7881 or marcia.koslov@courts.state.wi.us.

¹⁷ See WISCONSIN PROPOSAL, supra note 4, at 35.

¹⁸ Recommendation 1 of the Task Force states that "[f]or those jurisdictions considering change to a medium-neutral citation form, the Task Force recommends the use of the following case citation form: case name, year of decision, court, opinion number and, where a pinpoint cite is needed, paragraph number." See REPORT, supra note 1, at  ¶ 92.

¹⁹ See SPECIAL COMM. CITATION ISSUES, AM. BAR ASS'N, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (May 23, 1996) [hereinafter REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION], approved by the ABA House of Delegates on August 6, 1996. The full text of the resolution recommending use of the universal citation form proposed by the Special Committee is available on the Internet at ABA Official Citation Resolutions (visited May 4, 1999) <http://www.abanet.org/citation/resolution.html>].

²⁰ One feature adopted from the ABA is a name change. Until Draft 4.0 of the User Guide, the AALL case citation has been described as a "medium-neutral citation," but its new designation as a "universal citation" better conveys the notion that our next generation of citations must be vendor-neutral as well as medium-neutral. A second borrowed feature is the use of two-letter postal codes as state abbreviations. Earlier drafts of the AALL citation followed The Bluebook in using the older state abbreviations, which no longer seem useful. The third and final borrowing from the ABA proposal is the practice of using the ¶ symbol to introduce a paragraph number in a pinpoint citation. The original AALL Task Force was advised by online database publishers that ¶ symbols could be incorporated into their products only with extreme difficulty. These technical difficulties have been resolved and the symbol does clarify the citation. The ABA also recommended the inclusion of a parallel citation to a print reporter for a transitional period. Except for the court abbreviation, the resulting citation is similar to the AALL equivalent.

²¹ The ABA and AALL proposals use fundamentally different approaches to define court abbreviations for their respective universal citations. For federal courts, the ABA approach uses fragments from law book citations - such as 'US," "5Cir," and "SDNY." For state courts, the ABA uses postal abbreviations for high courts and appends the suffix "App" to identify intermediate state appellate courts. See generally REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, supra note 19, at Appendix A.  By contrast, the AALL approach uses a simple algorithm which builds a court identifier from a logical progression of abbreviations. See Guide, infra Rule 4.

While the ABA approach has the beauty of using intuitively recognized abbreviations for most case citations, the approach ignores many complex judicial scenarios. Non-unitary state appellate courts are an unresolved problem -- decisions from the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is fragmented into twelve independent districts, cannot be so simply abbreviated as OH App. Specialized appellate courts -- such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals -- pose additional problems. Even more problematic are state trial courts, such as the New Jersey Superior Court with its Law and Chancery Divisions. However, the great untamed wilderness is administrative case law. The ABA suggests that its universal citation can be applied to decisions of federal administrative tribunals such as the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission -- using abbreviations which are reminiscent of existing printed reporters. No guidance, however, is offered for citing the explosion of state administrative law decisions now appearing in electronic formats. In fairness to the ABA, its Report offers only illustrations of its recommended citation, which may not be intended to be viewed as a complete system for constructing court abbreviations.

So variegated is American case law that AALL decided to use a simple algorithm to devise unique court abbreviations. Under this formula, a citation begins with one or more geographical abbreviations, continues with any needed specialized court abbreviations, and ends with circuit or district information enclosed in a parenthetical. So a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court is abbreviated as "OH." One from the Fifth District of the Ohio Court of Appeals is denoted as "OH App (5th)." A case from the Ohio Court of Claims is abbreviated as "OH Cl Ct" while a decision from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is condensed to "OH Lucas County Ct C P." Thus by composing a logical sequence of abbreviations, a researcher can arrive at an unambiguous abbreviation for virtually any American court. For tables of standardized abbreviations to be used in composing court abbreviations, see Appendix B.

²² The Bluebook, supra note 11, at 62. The relevant portion of Rule 10.3.1 provides:

If the decision is available as an official public domain citation (also referred to as medium neutral citation), that citation should be provided instead. A parallel citation to the regional reporter may be provided as well.  When citing a decision available in public domain format, provide the case name, the year of the decision, the name of the court issuing the decision, and the sequential number of the decision. When referencing specific material within a decision, a pinpoint citation should be made to the paragraph number at which the material appears in the public domain citation. The following fictitious examples are representative of the recommended public domain format:

Stevens v. State, 1996 S.D. 1 ¶ 217;
Jenkins v. Patterson, 1997 Wis. Ct. App. 45 ¶ 157, 600 N.W.2d 435.

²³ "Codes" and "compilations" can have different meanings. For purposes of this document a code is defined to include a compilation, and means a recompilation of selective session laws in a subject arrangement, whether it is formally enacted into positive law or not.

²⁴ For a discussion of issues relating to case law citation, see REPORT, supra note 1, at ¶¶ 27-44.

²⁵ The paper supplement is cumulative and thus grows in length every year, adding volumes.

²⁶ Telephone interview with John Miller, Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (Dec. 9, 1997).

²⁷ Telephone interview with Joe Edwards, Director of U.S.C.A. & Alabama Products, West Group (Dec. 15, 1997).

²⁸ The Bluebook, supra note 11, at 75 (Rule 12.2.2(c)).

²⁹ AR Code § 1-2-103 (1995 through 1st Ext Sess).

³⁰ The Bluebook, supra note 11, at 78 (Rule 12.3.2).

³¹ Id. at 77 (Rule 12.3. l (d)).

³² As of January 1998, Michigan is the only jurisdiction with two versions of its statutory code actually numbered differently.

³³ Examples of this include Titles 2, 6-8, 12, 15-16, 19-22, 24-27, 29-30, 33-34, 36, 40-43, 45, 47-48 of the U.S. Code; and all or part of state codes that have not actually been enacted by the legislature, for example, the codes of Missouri and Vermont, which are prima facie evidence of the law.

³⁴ Traditionally at the federal level it is customary to include the name of a statute if it is in a title of the U.S. Code that is not enacted (e.g., Title 42). However, practice has become blurred, and additional statutes are cited by name as well (e.g., the Mann Act).

³⁵ A statutory code is numbered according to a particular scheme. Several different types of schemes exist: the title may precede the code designation; it may follow it, as part of the section number; or the subject area may be included in the code designation. Most state codes adhere to one numbering scheme, but a few states are in the process of recodification and thus may use more than one type of numbering. If this is the case, it is indicated in Appendix E.

³⁶ The "current through" date can be found on the title page of a printed code, supplement or pocket part, and is usually found at the first screen of an online code section. On a CD-ROM product or Web site, there usually is a currency note prominently displayed. Using a "current through" date allows the author to pinpoint exactly the time at which the code contained the cited wording in its exact form. It allows the reader to more easily verify the citation, whether the reader is using a book, a CD-ROM product, a Web site, or an online version of the text. No indication of currency is a sign for the reader to check the reliability of the source.

³⁷ An examination of two states illustrates some of the difficulties in this area as developing paper and online sources come into conflict. In Wyoming, administrative regulations are available on the Secretary of State's Internet site at <http://soswy.state.wy.us/rules/ rules.htm> (visited December 2, 1998). These rules are for all practical purposes an administrative code in that they constitute an up-to-date subject arrangement for all state agency rules. The state has not, however, designated this electronic product to be a "code." The other source for state regulations is Weil's Code of Wyoming Rules, published by Weil Publishing Company. It is unofficial and has its own numbering system. Users are therefore confronted with two versions of the "code" with different identification schemes for the same information.

In Maine, a similar problem exists with registers. Maine does not have an official register and instead publishes its administrative notices in five newspapers in the state.  These notices are now available on a state government Web site at <http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/weekly.htm> (visited December 2, 1998). This site has not yet been acknowledged to be an official "register" although it could be viewed as serving that purpose. These regulations and notices are also published in Weil's Maine Government Register. The Weil edition has its own citation format for issues and pages.

³⁸The Bluebook, supra note 11.

³⁹ Id. at 93 (Rule 14).

⁴⁰ See infra Appendices D and E for individual jurisdiction citations.

⁴¹ A substantial number of printed state administrative codes list the date each code section was last amended, with or without a register number, as parenthetical information at the end of each code section. Examples include the administrative codes of Idaho, Kentucky, and Missouri. The Code of Colorado, on the other hand, states the history and currency information at the beginning of large sections of the code as each title is reprinted. A third method, such as that found in the Code of Rhode Island Rules, dates each individual physical page with the date that particular page was last reprinted. These "systems" are not exclusive of each other. For example, for each of its code sections, the Code of Massachusetts Regulations identifies the effective date and the date of the last amendment. For each physical page, it also provides the date it was last printed.

⁴² The majority of administrative codes on Westlaw and LEXIS provide statements that the particular code section is current through a given date or register number. State government Internet sources more often include the date the code section was last amended. AZ Admin Code <http:www.sosaz.com/Rules_and_Regulations.htm> (visited May 4, 1999); NV Admin Code <http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/ CHAPTERS.HTM> (visited Dec 2, 1998).

⁴³ See NV Reg of Admin Regs <http://www.leg.state.nv.us/register/VOLUME-PAGE. html> (visited Dec 2, 1998).

⁴⁴ The basic requirement of this rule assumes that within a particular jurisdiction all source or versions of a code will be organized and numbered in a similar fashion. In a few states, the only codification is one arranged and numbered according to an idiosyncratic system devised and utilized solely by a particular commercial publisher. At the same time, the state may be disseminating agency regulations on a timely basis either in an uncodified format, or in an arrangement that looks like and serves as a code but has not yet been recognized as one. These rules do not suggest that an individual using a commercially available source with its own unique numbering system should be barred from citing to that source. However, the preference for citing a code (and the fact that a particular code is listed in Appendix E of these rules) should not force the writer to identify a code number utilized by a commercial publisher. In order to ensure that a reader is able to identify and locate the cited text, a writer may find it necessary to follow Rule 502 or Rule 503, which provide instructions for citing uncodified materials.

⁴⁵ In most jurisdictions the government publishes the register. Within the jurisdiction all sources of register information are consistent whether in paper or electronic format. In a few instances, the state has paper or online versions of its administrative notices and proposed regulations that may or may not be recognized as a "register." At the same time, a commercially available version of the same information, arranged by a numbering system unique to that publisher, is available. Neither the existence of such a commercial register nor its inclusion in Appendix E of these rules requires that writers cite to it. The writer may prefer to cite a regulation according to Rule 4 to enable the reader easily to identify and locate the appropriate text.

⁴⁶ In most states the administrative code has a single numbering system regardless of the publisher. In other states a given code section could have different numbers depending on the source. Because of these different numbering schemes, it may be necessary to include the name of the compiler in the code designation in accordance with Appendix E.

⁴⁷ When citing material in the Code of Federal Regulations use "§" to indicate a particular section. Use "pt" to indicate a particular part.

⁴⁸ In almost all states regulations published in a register have a single numbering system regardless of the publisher. In a few states register citations could vary depending on the source. Because of these different numbering schemes, it may be necessary to include the name of the compiler in the register source in accordance with Appendix E.

⁴⁹ The publication date is the most important date because it is used to locate the text of the regulation. If the effective date of the regulation differs from the publication date and that difference is at issue, the publication date should still be given in the citation and the difference noted in a parenthetical statement.