Can anyone help an italic-hater?
July 29, 2009 9:31 AM Subscribe
Calling all editors, proofreaders, and style mavens! I need help with (not) italicizing court cases in a non-legal document.
I know you italicize the names of cases when you're using "versus" or naming a specific case. ("Brown v. Jones" or "in the Jones case") But how about when you're just naming people or companies who were involved in cases in a narrative? Like "In March 2002, ABC Corporation agreed to settle allegations that it violated federal law."
It's there. I don't like it. Can someone get me off the hook with some sort of style guide I can cite? We don't have a house one, and the rule as listed in GPO isn't clear to me.
(This is for a non-legal American government document which will eventually be published online for the general public.)
I know you italicize the names of cases when you're using "versus" or naming a specific case. ("Brown v. Jones" or "in the Jones case") But how about when you're just naming people or companies who were involved in cases in a narrative? Like "In March 2002, ABC Corporation agreed to settle allegations that it violated federal law."
It's there. I don't like it. Can someone get me off the hook with some sort of style guide I can cite? We don't have a house one, and the rule as listed in GPO isn't clear to me.
(This is for a non-legal American government document which will eventually be published online for the general public.)
And I don't know if this helps, but AP style eschews italics altogether because, to quote the manual "they cannot be sent through AP computers." I doubt this is still the case, but the rule is still in place.
posted by dortmunder at 9:43 AM on July 29, 2009
posted by dortmunder at 9:43 AM on July 29, 2009
Response by poster: I've been changing them to Roman but they keep getting changed back. I'm editing something written by a lawyer (a bunch of them, actually) so I'm assuming they got this idea from somewhere, but I don't have a background in legal writing.
posted by JoanArkham at 9:43 AM on July 29, 2009
posted by JoanArkham at 9:43 AM on July 29, 2009
No itals. Itals are incorrect in the example you give. I agree with Dort that you don't need to cite a style guide. (I can't open your GPO link, btw.)
(Decades of editorial experience here--will work for food, or money, or love)
posted by scratch at 9:45 AM on July 29, 2009
(Decades of editorial experience here--will work for food, or money, or love)
posted by scratch at 9:45 AM on July 29, 2009
On non-preview: If it's the lawyers who are changing them back, STET the mofos. Their expertise is in the law. Yours is in editorial production.
Authors. Can't live with 'em, can't edit without 'em.
posted by scratch at 9:46 AM on July 29, 2009
Authors. Can't live with 'em, can't edit without 'em.
posted by scratch at 9:46 AM on July 29, 2009
Best answer: The Elements of Legal Style may be what you need, The list ofbooks on legal writing from Typography for Lawyers might also be helpful as well.
posted by thebestsophist at 9:48 AM on July 29, 2009
posted by thebestsophist at 9:48 AM on July 29, 2009
The lawyers are probably assuming that "ABC Corporation" is a truncated reference to whatever case is being referred to, like "ABC Corporation v. A Million Monkeys." Depending on the style, italicizing a truncated title reference may be correct, but the example you give is definitely not a reference to a case.
posted by dortmunder at 9:53 AM on July 29, 2009
posted by dortmunder at 9:53 AM on July 29, 2009
The lawyers are probably assuming that "ABC Corporation" is a truncated reference to whatever case is being referred to, like "ABC Corporation v. A Million Monkeys."
This.
"After Plessy v. Ferguson, both Plessy and Ferguson dropped from the public eye" is correct style.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:56 AM on July 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
This.
"After Plessy v. Ferguson, both Plessy and Ferguson dropped from the public eye" is correct style.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:56 AM on July 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Sadly, I have less than no power here. Non-lawyers are seen as mere "support" and I'm supporting the support. If I can't find a cite I'm going to have to grit my teeth and bear it.
Sorry the GPO link won't work, it does from here. This is the index page if you're curious.
posted by JoanArkham at 9:56 AM on July 29, 2009
Sorry the GPO link won't work, it does from here. This is the index page if you're curious.
posted by JoanArkham at 9:56 AM on July 29, 2009
Best answer: The legal Bluebook rule to italicize a case name is in Rule 2.2 (The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 18th ed. 2002)), but I don't think there's any rule that says don't italicize party names, which is common sense.
Anyway, in JoanArkham's linked GPO rule 11.8, it seems pretty clear-cut to me in this example:
"John Doe v. Richard Roe
but John Doe against Richard Roe, the Cement case"
In the second line, the party names are not italicized but the case name is. Cite that.
posted by That takes balls. at 9:58 AM on July 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
Anyway, in JoanArkham's linked GPO rule 11.8, it seems pretty clear-cut to me in this example:
"John Doe v. Richard Roe
but John Doe against Richard Roe, the Cement case"
In the second line, the party names are not italicized but the case name is. Cite that.
posted by That takes balls. at 9:58 AM on July 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
It'd be fine if they were correcting legal documents, which have very specific styles and conventions that must be adhered to. But out here in the rest of the world, ABC Corporation is not italicized, or bolded, or underlined. Or sparkled or blinked or any other damn thing except properly capitalized and spelled.
Unless they are going to argue that ABC Corporation is a "key term," as defined by the Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) in 6.71:
But in the example you've presented, it just looks weird, and it certainly shouldn't be italicized throughout the text.
/ed. of 15ish years
On preview, The lawyers are probably assuming that "ABC Corporation" is a truncated reference to whatever case is being referred to, yeah, that would be one thing, but in the example, it reads to me as Name of Corporation, not Name of Case, since a legal case isn't an entity that agrees to settle allegations, but a corporation is.
posted by rtha at 10:07 AM on July 29, 2009
Unless they are going to argue that ABC Corporation is a "key term," as defined by the Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) in 6.71:
"Key terms in a discussion, terms with special meaning, and in general, terms to which the reader's attention is directed are often italicized on first use*. Thereafter they are best set in roman:*emphasis mine
Two chief tactics of this group, obstructionism and misinformation, require careful analysis in what follows."
But in the example you've presented, it just looks weird, and it certainly shouldn't be italicized throughout the text.
/ed. of 15ish years
On preview, The lawyers are probably assuming that "ABC Corporation" is a truncated reference to whatever case is being referred to, yeah, that would be one thing, but in the example, it reads to me as Name of Corporation, not Name of Case, since a legal case isn't an entity that agrees to settle allegations, but a corporation is.
posted by rtha at 10:07 AM on July 29, 2009
Smith v. Jones, volume reporter page (date) could be your legal citation (in the very most basic terms: trust me, there's a lot more to it than that), whereas when talking about Mr. Smith (like the example with ABC Corporation that you provide above) you would simply say, "The original action involving (Mr.) Smith settled out of court for an undisclosed amount." If you are referencing the case and using a shortened form of the citation (which is entirely acceptable so long as your reader has access to the non-shortened citation in order to look it up should they so choose!), however, you SHOULD use an editorial cue, as in, "The court in Smith pronounced a clear rule for determining whether and when a plaintiff has the burden of showing intent in the case of a rabid ferret attack."
WHICH editorial cue you should use is up for some debate and is currently a mishmash of rules. The State of New Jersey frowns upon the use of italics AT ALL. The State's style manual states that they are difficult to read and are distracting to the eye. In any case where something WOULD be italicized, we've been instructed to underline. This is especially true of citations. So the examples I provided above would be 1) Smith v. Jones, volume reporter page (date); 2) Smith; and 3) The court in Smith...
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:10 AM on July 29, 2009
WHICH editorial cue you should use is up for some debate and is currently a mishmash of rules. The State of New Jersey frowns upon the use of italics AT ALL. The State's style manual states that they are difficult to read and are distracting to the eye. In any case where something WOULD be italicized, we've been instructed to underline. This is especially true of citations. So the examples I provided above would be 1) Smith v. Jones, volume reporter page (date); 2) Smith; and 3) The court in Smith...
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:10 AM on July 29, 2009
Of note: My New Jersey anecdote is merely to illustrate that current editorial cues for case citation are very much a "when in Rome" sort of thing. As others have mentioned, the nearly universally accepted formatting guide is the Blue Book. I'd suggest taking your cues institutionally - if italicization is the norm, use that rather than underlining.
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:14 AM on July 29, 2009
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:14 AM on July 29, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks all. If I can argue that GPO agrees with me I might have a leg to stand on, but I wasn't sure. I wish they would use longer and more relevant examples.
Off to fight the good fight!
posted by JoanArkham at 11:06 AM on July 29, 2009
Off to fight the good fight!
posted by JoanArkham at 11:06 AM on July 29, 2009
rtha is correct, and "John Doe against Richard Roe, the Cement case" is hard to argue with.
//ed. of 25ish years
> I agree with Dort that you don't need to cite a style guide.
What the hell is wrong with people? The poster makes it clear that she needs to be able to cite a style guide. If someone says they need something, don't argue with them. Provide it or stay out of it.
posted by languagehat at 12:53 PM on July 29, 2009
//ed. of 25ish years
> I agree with Dort that you don't need to cite a style guide.
What the hell is wrong with people? The poster makes it clear that she needs to be able to cite a style guide. If someone says they need something, don't argue with them. Provide it or stay out of it.
posted by languagehat at 12:53 PM on July 29, 2009
Best answer: The Bluebook, the authority on legal writing, is online! Let me copy and paste a portion of bluepages section B13, entitled "Typeface Conventions." In legal documents other than journal articles,
In addition, point to Rule 2 and Rule 7.
Rule 2 just tells us what we already know: italicize case names (Smith v. Jones). Rule 7 then provides a list of what else we can italicize:
posted by prefpara at 6:34 PM on July 29, 2009 [2 favorites]
The following are either italicized or underscored:This is an exhaustive list. "Names of parties to a case" is not on the list.
Introductory signals
Full and short case names
Procedural and explanatory phrases in case citations
“Id.”
Titles of books, articles, and essays
Titles of legislative materials
Punctuation that falls within italicized or underscored material
Introductory phrases for related authority
Internal cross references
In addition, point to Rule 2 and Rule 7.
Rule 2 just tells us what we already know: italicize case names (Smith v. Jones). Rule 7 then provides a list of what else we can italicize:
(a) Style.And:
Words and phrases may be italicized for emphasis.
(b) Foreign words and phrases.Again, this is an exhaustive list. If the Bluebook does not say in B13 or R7 that you can italicize the name of a party, then you CANNOT DO IT... unless you are doing it for emphasis, R7a.
(c) Letters representing hypothetical parties or places.
(d) The lowercase letter “l.”
(e) Equations.
posted by prefpara at 6:34 PM on July 29, 2009 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dortmunder at 9:40 AM on July 29, 2009