When you use (cleaned up), your credibility is on the line. has made changes that enhance readability while otherwise faithfully reproducing the quoted text.īottom line: using (cleaned up) makes quoting and citing easier and aids reading, too.īut beware.has changed capitalization without indicating the changes, and.has removed extraneous, non-substantive material such as brackets, quotation marks, ellipses, footnote numbers, and internal citations,.But here’s a quick summary: Using (cleaned up) means that in quoting, the author.
CLEAN TEXT QUOTATION MARKS FULL
Metzler’s rules for (cleaned up) appeared in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, and they’re quoted in full at the bottom of this post. Lawyers and judges have started using (cleaned up), and it has appeared in dozens of appellate briefs and judicial opinions in Texas, as well as in other state courts and federal courts. Would look like this- Above all, “courts presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems manifest by experience, and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.” Enron Corp. 1968) (quoting Texas Nat’l Guard Armory Bd. So this original- Above all, “ourts presume that the Legislature ‘ “understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience, and that its discriminations are based upon adequate grounds.” ’ ” Enron Corp. The idea was to make quotations easier to read and to reduce words and bibliographic clutter. Metzler has also written a law-review article about (cleaned up). That cleaner, neater version was the goal of attorney Jack Metzler when he invented the “cleaned up” explanatory parenthetical in 2017. 1979)).īut what if you could delete the brackets, the ellipses, and the quotation within a quotation? What if you could omit the underlying source and the parenthetical it’s embedded in? Would that be okay, as long as you told the reader you “cleaned up” what would otherwise be a messy quotation? If you did, it might look like this: The Court has previously observed that “the failure to affirmatively establish the fact sought does not prevent the cross-examination from having probative value in regard to the witness’s credibility.” Henry v. probative value in regard to the witness’s credibility.’” Henry v. So you might end up with something like this: The Court has previously observed that “he failure to affirmatively establish the fact sought does not ‘prevent the cross-examination from having. Under Bluebook rules, you’d cite the case you’re quoting as well as the underlying source, and you’d show every alteration and omission. And suppose you choose to omit some words and alter the original a bit.
Suppose you’re writing a piece of legal analysis and you need to quote a case that’s quoting another case. Have you heard of (cleaned up)-the daring new explanatory parenthetical?
0 kommentar(er)
