Rule B.9: Internal Cross-References and Hereinafter

Return to Red Rules

B.9(a): Use of Supra and Infra for Internal Cross-References

**Please note TLR differs from Bluebook for this rule**

TLR follows Bluebook Rule 3.5, with the added preference that supras and infras be used in textual sentences, not citation sentences, unless the content of the textual sentence would merely repeat (or effectively repeat) the ATL assertion.

(1) Examples— Supra/Infra Used as Part of a Citation Sentence (Not Preferred).

Correct: See supra notes 45–52 and accompanying text.

  • Note: The “see” is italicized.

Incorrect: See supra notes 45–52 and accompanying text analyzing the causes of pizza-induced comas and marsupial-based lightning storms.

  • Why: This is using “see” as a signal in a citation clause but making the citation into a sentence.

(2) Examples—Supra/Infra Used as Part of a Textual Sentence (Preferred).

Correct:

  1. See supra notes 45–52 and accompanying text for a discussion of the applicable statute of limitations defense.
  2. See infra note 134 for a list of cases supporting this proposition.

Incorrect: See supra notes 45–52 and accompanying text (discussing applicable statute of limitations defense).

B.9(b): Special Rules and Notes for Using Supra and Infra

  1. Formatting of Signal: When an internal cross-reference is used in a sentence as in Red Rule B.9(a)(2), supra, the signal should not be italicized. 
  2. Accurate Description: “Discussion” should only be used to refer to an actual discussion of a topic that spans more than a few footnotes. If an internal reference analyzes, lists, or otherwise addresses an assertion, then “discussion” should be replaced with “analysis,” “list,” or another appropriate noun.
  3. Raising an Entire Section: A “See supra/infra notes . . . .” that lists all of the footnotes in one section and only those footnotes should be referenced as: “See supra Part II.D for an analysis of . . . .”
  4. Full Cite Not Needed with Supra: A “See supra . . . .” that refers back to a discussion of a case need only provide a short  name of the case, abbreviated as necessary.
    1. EXAMPLE: See supra notes 34–40 and accompanying text for a discussion of Miranda.
  5. Full Cite Needed with Infra: If a case is mentioned for the first time in a “See infra” referring to a discussion of a case, the case needs to be cited in full.
    1. EXAMPLE: See infra notes 157–68 and accompanying text for a discussion of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).

B.9(c): Use of Hereinafter

“Hereinafter” should not be used for case citations. TLR will, in certain cases, make the “extraordinary circumstances” exception for case names in Bluebook Rule 4.2 and use “hereinafter” in a citation in the footnotes, but not in the body of the text.

There are two instances in which TLR will use a hereinafter designation: (1) where there is an extremely long case name (e.g., the first example in Bluebook Rule 4.2) or (2) where multiple sources (journals, internet sources, etc.) by the same author are used throughout the piece. 

Note: Hereinafter should come after the URL for Internet citations (Bluebook Rule 1.5(b)).

When there are two cases with identical party names that will likely cause confusion, please follow Bluebook Rule 10.2.1(k) to designate a name for the case rather than using hereinafter.

Return to Red Rules