Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. -- Should there be a comma before Inc.?

February 20, 2013 5:30 PM

Sorry for the esoteric legal question, but I'm intrigued by this case name. I thought that "Inc." was always preceded by a comma in a party name. Yet this case doesn't seem to include the comma: Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) http://​www.​supremecourt​.gov​/opinions​/10pdf​/10-779.pdf A quick Googling shows a mixed bag of comma use. Does anyone have any idea whether the comma belongs or not? Thanks!
posted by travisf to law & government (6 answers total)

The company can choose whether to have the comma in its legal name.
In the case of IMS Health, the full name is "IMS Health Incorporated," shortened in the case name to IMS Health Inc.
posted by chickenmagazine at 5:38 PM on February 20

According to their last 10-K before they were taken private, the official name of the company as recorded in its charter is "IMS Health Incorporated". So the name without the comma is the correct name.
posted by RichardP at 5:40 PM on February 20

Here, in their filing in the case, they do not include the comma.
posted by mercredi at 6:05 PM on February 20

Somewhat orthogonal to this, I seem to recall that the Bluebook specifies that when a party name is clearly corporate in nature, it is not necessary (and is in fact discouraged) to include things like "Inc.," "Corp.," etc.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 6:53 PM on February 20 [1 favorite]

That is the Bluebook rule, but no one follows it.
posted by John Cohen at 8:07 PM on February 20

I always followed it, rigorously. It made it easier not to have to worry about how to properly format weird European corporate acronyms like GmbH or whatever, and just in general made citations neater, shorter, and easier to keep consistent. So, yes, at least one person followed it, and all the people working under me followed it, too.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 2:37 PM on February 24