Jump to content

Rules on Quoting Precedents? ...chicken for lunch....


jdfkl
 Share

Recommended Posts

In quoting precedents in my briefs, are there any general guidelines I need to know or be warned about?  

 

 

For example, in reading case law I find quotes adjusted by the courts:

 

"The rules indicate a plaintiff must....(2) prove an indignity, (3) show a liability....(6) eat chicken for lunch....." see Big JDB v Underdog, District Court, 2011.

 

 

As a Defendant, am I allowed the same kind of latitude to  "...." to condense a quote to include only the essential elements for my case?  

Or if I tweak a quote at all, will my quote be stricken, overlooked, or otherwise?

 

 

 

 

Am I allowed to add bracketed words to replace or sit next to the precedent reference?

 

For instance, my word: "[evidence]" for precedent's words "expert testimony"?: 

 

 

Precedent Quote:  "Plaintiff failed to disclose his grandma's strawberry pie and expert testimony."

 

Adjusted to support my argument:  

 

"Plaintiff failed to disclose...expert testimony."

 

OR

 

"Plaintiff failed to disclose...[evidence]."

 

OR

 

"Plaintiff failed to disclose [evidence] strawberry pie and [evidence] expert testimony."

 

 

I hope my question doesn't dishonor the Forum.

Google hasn't been overly helpful in this regard, and I'm trying to make everything fit into 5 pages, but I don't want to damage my authorities if I am not allowed to do any kind of tweaking to them whatsoever.

 

Thanks!   :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your using any URL

TABLE OF UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATORS (URLs)

For readability, the URLs cited in this brief have been shortened using the URL shortening service from Google. See, http://goo.gl/.

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/321481-rules-on-quoting-precedents-chicken-for-lunch/#entry1262953

 

 

 http://goo.gl/BWL09G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the worst things you can do is misrepresent your sources. Even if done so harmlessly, you will convey the impression that you're trying to mislead the court.  How to properly cite to supporting authority isn't something that can be taught in a few sentences. It's best for a pro se litigant to directly quote the authority, rather than risk appearing as if you're trying to mislead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, thank you for the insight.

 

So can I paraphrase in front of the quote to show how the citation relates to my case, then use the direct quote behind it?  

 

The last thing I want to do is discredit the work I have done; but my fear is that unless I point out how the two cases go hand in hand, the judge might not make the inference himself? (I'm concerned.  yikes.)

 

Thanks!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.