 Hi, this is Mary Wisner from the Gallagher Law Library of the University of Washington School of Law. I'd like to help demystify blue book signals by showing you some examples from briefs. Now, the blue book in Rule 1.2 in both the blue pages and the white pages lists a bunch of signals, and I think maybe the sheer number of signals is what makes them confusing. I'm going to walk through them. It's going to be okay. Some signals show positive support. Here is something that supports my proposition. Some invite a comparison, and some say, oh, whoops, whoops, here's something that goes against my proposition. Why do we use signals? Signals are tools for you. They help you concisely communicate to your reader what you know about how the authorities fit together and how you are using each source. Many blue book rules are fairly rigid. There's a right and a wrong way to cite various materials, but signals give you some leeway. You don't have to agonize over whether to use C or CEG. Choose the signal that fits with what you're trying to communicate. The first signal is no signal at all. It's direct support. That means you don't need any special flag or trumpet fanfare before you cite your source. Here we have plain error occurs when the district court fails to define a term in the jury instructions that is essential to understanding whether the defendant has committed the charge defense. This is from a Ninth Circuit brief from last year. The author cites United States versus Harvey, a Ninth Circuit case, and in particular a footnote there. This is direct support, because if we go look up that footnote, we find that the footnote says basically what the brief author said it said. If these terms are essential to a correct definition of the intent element of the crime, refusal to include them in the jury instruction would constitute plain error. So there's no need to say C or C generally, because this footnote supports what the brief author said. Direct support also includes quotations. So here the Washington Attorney General's office quotes a case and then cites the case. Quotes a case, cites the case. You don't need a signal because you're just giving direct support. EG is about what it means in our regular life. It means, for example, if you're a stickler, the Latin is exempli grattia. It means that when you know that there are other examples, but you're just citing one or a few, it can be used by itself or in combination with other signals. You could think of it as being used in combination with no signal when it's by itself. Here's an example from a brief. This court has repeatedly held, blah, blah, blah, EG Berezovsky. So the author is saying the court has done something. A lot of times there are a lot of cases. I'm citing this case, EG, and that means there are others. A court means that the text refers to one source for a proposition, but you use a court when you're bringing in another source that states the same thing. You can use it to show that another jurisdiction is in a court with the rule that you just stated. It's not used as often as many other signals. So for example, here is a case in the Ninth Circuit. The brief cites a Ninth Circuit case stating a rule from federal court and then says a court, people versus steward, with a parenthetical saying it's the same under California law. C means that the cited authority clearly supports the proposition, but readers might have to draw an inference or think a little bit harder than it when it's no signal. It's a good all-purpose signal. It's frequently used. Here's an example from a brief. If the court deems this order reviewable, defendants bear the heavy burden of showing one, two, three, C, this case, Hilton versus Bronskill. Another example, the Washington Constitution authorizes the legislature to grant cities the power to levy taxes, C, Watson versus city of Seattle. C, E, G combines that E, G sense of there are lots of examples with the general notion of C. In cases where this court has treated a TRO as a preliminary injunction, something has happened, C, E, G. So that's saying I could give you other cases, but I'm giving you this one as an example, C, E, G. C also means kind of what it says. You've supported your proposition with at least one authority and you want to add something else that also supports it. The blue book recommends that you use a parenthetical to explain why the additional source is relevant. So here's an example. The burden rests upon the party who challenges an ordinance to establish clearly its invalidity, wink and order versus city of Yakima. Then the brief author says C also, Silver Shore's mobile home park, and has a parenthetical saying why the author is adding that C also. CF is sort of going off on a tangent, but it's still supporting. The authority supports a proposition different from the main proposition, but close enough to help you make the point. The blue book authors say you should use a parenthetical to explain why you're including the authority. It comes from the Latin for compare, but it's not the same as the compare this with that signal. Here's an example that will make this a little bit clearer. In this case, the brief author is saying HTO and Tyson had the burden of proving that their rental was for the purpose of sublease. The brief author says CF, Seattle Filmworks, a sale is for resale. So the author is saying I know that I'm talking about sublease and the case I'm citing is about resale, but I want to encourage you to think of resale as being enough like sublease that you can apply the same rule. That's what CF is. It's citing something that's close enough to illustrate the point, but it's not exactly on point. Compare this with that. You're comparing two or more authorities to illustrate some point. You should use parentheticals to explain why you're doing it. Here's an example from a petition for a writ of sorciori, oh dear, I misspelled writ. The principles reflected in the court's most recent Brady cases compare this case with a parenthetical with this other case that also has a parenthetical. Contra means that the cited authority directly contradicts the proposition you've just stated. Now it's important as a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that there are some cases that go against the proposition you've stated. It's honesty to the tribunal and honesty to your readers. This signal isn't used very often. Not saying that people are dishonest, it just doesn't come up that much. Here's an example from a U.S. Supreme Court case. Justice Stevens said the courts of appeals have almost uniformly concluded the state and local laws doing this, cite, cite, cite, cite four cases, and then contra, Lindsey versus Tacoma Pierce County Health Department. So the justice said, the bulk of the cases go this way. I can cite them, and then contra is this one other case. But C and but CF are the negative side of C and CF. They're saying, here is authority that goes against the proposition I've just asserted. Again, it's a matter of intellectual honesty to say, I know that there are some sources that don't go my way. C, generally, is used for giving helpful background material related to the proposition. Blue Book authors recommend that you use a parenthetical. It's probably used more in memos and law review articles than in briefs, but I haven't done a careful study. Here's a little chart comparing signals judged by their tone. In this column, the signals all support your proposition. No signal, e.g., a chord, C, C also in CF. They're all support. Compare this with that is the only one that's for comparison. Contradiction can be contra that's similar to no signal, but C, like C, and but CF, that's like CF. Background is C, generally. Now, I've mentioned sometimes that some signals, you should have a parenthetical to explain why you're putting in the authority. This chart shows you which ones those are. C also, CF, compare this with that, but CF, and C, generally, really should all have parentheticals. This has been Mary Wisner of the Gallagher Law Library. Please see our website for library services, research guides, and more.