Rule 1 concerns parenthetical citations when the reporter set name equals the jurisdiction. When citing a case as 33 Cal. 4th 353 (2004), should you include the court name in the parenthetical?

Rule 1 concerns parenthetical citations when the reporter set name equals the jurisdiction. When citing a case as 33 Cal. 4th 353 (2004), should you include the court name in the parenthetical?

• A. Include the court name in the parenthetical.
• B. Exclude the court name from the parenthetical.
• C. Include the judge's name in the parenthetical.
• D. Include the volume and reporter again.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that the parenthetical after a case citation should not repeat information that's already made clear by the reporter name. When the reporter set name equals the jurisdiction, you omit the court from the parenthetical because it would be redundant. In the citation 33 Cal. 4th 353 (2004), the Cal. 4th part signals the California Reports, Fourth Series, which clearly establishes California as the jurisdiction. Repeating the court name in the parenthetical would add no new information and just clutter the citation. The parenthetical is there to convey ancillary details (like the year, pinpoint references, or any clarifying context), not to restate what's already indicated by the reporter. So the correct approach is to exclude the court name from the parenthetical. Including the judge’s name or duplicating the volume and reporter in the parenthetical would also be unnecessary or odd, since those elements are already present in the main citation and don’t serve the purpose of the parenthetical in this context.

The main idea here is that the parenthetical after a case citation should not repeat information that's already made clear by the reporter name. When the reporter set name equals the jurisdiction, you omit the court from the parenthetical because it would be redundant.

In the citation 33 Cal. 4th 353 (2004), the Cal. 4th part signals the California Reports, Fourth Series, which clearly establishes California as the jurisdiction. Repeating the court name in the parenthetical would add no new information and just clutter the citation. The parenthetical is there to convey ancillary details (like the year, pinpoint references, or any clarifying context), not to restate what's already indicated by the reporter. So the correct approach is to exclude the court name from the parenthetical.

Including the judge’s name or duplicating the volume and reporter in the parenthetical would also be unnecessary or odd, since those elements are already present in the main citation and don’t serve the purpose of the parenthetical in this context.