|Harvard Law Review|
The Harvard Law Review Association (United States)
|Frequency||8 per year|
|Harv. L. Rev.|
|Harv. Law Rev.|
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the Harvard Law Review's 2015 impact factor of 4.979 placed the journal first out of 143 journals in the category "Law".<re>"Journals Ranked by Impact: Law". 2011 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2012.</ref> It is published monthly from November through June, with the November issue dedicated to covering the previous year's term of the Supreme Court of the United States. The journal also publishes the online-only Harvard Law Review Forum, a rolling journal of scholarly responses to the main journal's content.
The Harvard Law Review Association, in conjunction with the Columbia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal, publishes the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, a widely followed authority for legal citation formats in the United States.
The Harvard Law Review published its first issue on April 15, 1887, making it one of the oldest operating student-edited law reviews in the United States. The establishment of the journal was largely due to the support of Louis Brandeis, then a recent Harvard Law School alumnus and Boston attorney who would later go on to become a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
From the 1880s to the 1970s, editors were selected on the basis of their grades; the president of the Review was the student with the highest academic rank. The first female editor of the journal was Priscilla Holmes (1953-1955, Volumes 67-68); the first woman to serve as the journal's president was Susan Estrich (1977), who later was active in Democratic Party politics and became the youngest woman to receive tenure at Harvard Law School; its first non-white ethnic minority president was Raj Marphatia (1988, Volume 101), who is now a partner at the Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray; its first African-American president was the 44th President of the United States Barack Obama (1991); its first openly gay president was Mitchell Reich (2011); its first Latino president was Andrew M. Crespo. The first female African-American president, ImeIme Umana, was elected in 2017.
Gannett House, a white building constructed in the Greek Revival style that was popular in New England during the mid-to-late 19th century, has been home to the Harvard Law Review since the 1920s. Before moving into Gannett House, the journal resided in the Law School's Austin Hall.
Since the change of criteria in the 1970s, grades are no longer the primary basis of selection for editors. Membership in the Harvard Law Review is offered to select Harvard law students based on first-year grades and performance in a writing competition held at the end of the first year except for twelve slots that are offered on a discretionary basis. The writing competition includes two components: an edit of an unpublished article and an analysis of a recent United States Supreme Court or Court of Appeals case. The writing competition submissions are graded blindly to assure anonymity. Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining twelve editors are selected on a discretionary basis. According to the law review's webpage, "Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review's affirmative action policy." The president of the Harvard Law Review is elected by the other editors.
It has been a long tradition, apparently since the first issue, that the works of students published in the Harvard Law Review are called "notes," and they are unsigned as part of a policy reflecting "the fact that many members of the Review besides the author make a contribution to each published piece."
Prominent alumni of the Harvard Law Review include:
The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, a style guide, prescribes the most widely used legal citation system in the United States. The Bluebook is compiled by the Harvard Law Review Association, the Columbia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal. Currently, it is in its 20th edition. It is so named because its cover is blue.
The Bluebook is taught and used at a majority of U.S. law schools, and is also used in a majority of U.S. federal courts. Alternative legal citation style guides exist, including the Maroonbook and the ALWD Citation Manual. There are also several "house" citation styles used by legal publishers in their works.
The U.S. Supreme Court uses its own unique citation style in its opinions, even though most of the justices and their law clerks obtained their legal education at law schools that use The Bluebook. Furthermore, many state courts have their own citation rules that take precedence over The Bluebook for documents filed with those courts. Some of the local rules are simple modifications to The Bluebook system, such as Maryland's requirement that citations to Maryland cases include a reference to the official Maryland reporter. Delaware's Supreme Court has promulgated rules of citation for unreported cases markedly different from The Bluebook standards, and custom in that state as to the citation format of the Delaware Code also differs from The Bluebook. In other states, notably New York, Texas, and Michigan, the local rules are different from The Bluebook in that they use their own style guides. Attorneys in those states who practice both in federal court and state court must be able to switch seamlessly between citation styles depending upon whether their work product is intended for a federal or state court. Since 2008, California rules of court have allowed citations in Bluebook form as well as the state's own style manual, but many practitioners and courts continue to recommend following the California Style Manual in California courts.An online subscription version of The Bluebook was launched in 2008. A mobile version was launched in 2012 within the rulebook app, an app that allows lawyers, scholars, judges, law students, paralegals, and others involved in the legal profession to reference federal and state court rules, codes, and style manuals on iPad and other mobile devices.Brett Kavanaugh
Brett Michael Kavanaugh (; born February 12, 1965) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He previously served as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and as a staff lawyer for various offices of the federal government.Kavanaugh graduated from Yale University, where he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. After graduating from Yale Law School, he began his career as a law clerk and then a postgraduate fellow working under Judge Ken Starr. After Starr left the D.C. Circuit to take the position as head of the Office of Independent Counsel, Kavanaugh followed and assisted him with various investigations concerning President Bill Clinton, including the drafting of the Starr Report, which urged Clinton's impeachment. After the 2000 U.S. presidential election (in which he worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount), he joined the administration as White House Staff Secretary and was a central figure in its efforts to identify and confirm judicial nominees. Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious; they stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. He was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators. A Washington Post analysis found he had the most or second-most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in every policy area between 2003 and 2018.President Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2018, to fill the position vacated by retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. When Kavanaugh's name was on the short list of Supreme Court nominees and before his nomination, Palo Alto University Professor of Psychology Christine Blasey Ford contacted a Washington Post tip line with accusations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s while the two were in high school. Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Kavanaugh denied all three accusations. The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee held a supplemental hearing over Ford's allegations, after which it voted to advance the confirmation to a full Senate vote. After delaying the vote for an additional FBI investigation, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh's nomination by a vote of 50–48 on October 6, 2018.Halsbury's Laws of England
Halsbury's Laws of England is a uniquely comprehensive encyclopaedia of law, and provides the only complete narrative statement of law in England and Wales. It has an alphabetised title scheme covering all areas of law, drawing on authorities including Acts of the United Kingdom, Measures of the Welsh Assembly, UK case law and European law. It is written by or in consultation with experts in the relevant field.Halsbury's Laws has an annual and monthly updating service. The encyclopaedia and updates are available in both hard copy and online with some content available for free online.Hart–Fuller debate
The Hart–Fuller debate is an exchange between Lon Fuller and H. L. A. Hart published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958 on morality and law, which demonstrated the divide between the positivist and natural law philosophy. Hart took the positivist view in arguing that morality and law were separate. Fuller's reply argued for morality as the source of law's binding power.Harvard Law School
Harvard Law School is one of the professional graduate schools of Harvard University located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1817, it is the oldest continuously operating law school in the United States and one of the most prestigious in the world. It is ranked first in the world by the QS World University Rankings and the ARWU Shanghai Ranking.Each class in the three-year J.D. program has approximately 560 students, among the largest of the top 150 ranked law schools in the United States. The first-year class is broken into seven sections of approximately 80 students, who take most first-year classes together. Harvard's uniquely large class size and prestige have led the law school to graduate a great many distinguished alumni in the judiciary, government, and the business world.
According to Harvard Law's 2015 ABA-required disclosures, 95% of the Class of 2014 passed the Bar exam. Harvard Law School graduates have accounted for 568 judicial clerkships in the past three years, including one-quarter of all Supreme Court clerkships, more than any other law school in the United States.
Harvard Law School's founding is traditionally linked to the funding of Harvard's first professorship in law, paid for from a bequest from the estate of Isaac Royall, Jr., a colonial American landowner and a slaveholder. Today, it is home to the largest academic law library in the world. The current dean of Harvard Law School is John F. Manning, who assumed the role on July 1, 2017. The law school has 328 faculty members.Hudson v. Palmer
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prison inmates have no privacy rights in their cells protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also held that an intentional deprivation of property by a state employee "does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists," extending Parratt v. Taylor to intentional torts.Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.List of legal abbreviations
It is common practice in legal documents to cite to other publications by using standard abbreviations for the title of each source. Abbreviations may also be found for common words or legal phrases. Such citations and abbreviations are found in court decisions, statutes, regulations, journal articles, books, and other documents. Below is a basic list of very common abbreviations. Because publishers adopt different practices regarding how abbreviations are printed, one may find abbreviations with or without periods for each letter. For example, the Code of Federal Regulations may appear abbreviated as "C.F.R." or just as "CFR."
For abbreviations not found in this list, here are alternate websites to search:
Abbreviations and Acronyms of the U.S. Government (maintained by U.S. Government Publishing Office)
The Cardiff Index to Legal Abbreviations (maintained by Cardiff University).
Common Abbreviations and Legal Citation Examples for Selected Federal Government Documents: Legislative, Regulatory and Statutory (maintained by LLSDC.org)For legal abbreviations not found online, try searching one of the following print sources. These publications are regularly found at law and other libraries.
Columbia Law Review Association, Inc., Harvard Law Review Association, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Yale Law Journal (Eds.) (2015). The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. 20th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association.
Garner, Brian. Black's Law Dictionary. 10th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Pub. Co., 2014.
Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law. 4th ed., 2015.
McGill Law Journal. Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation. 6th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2006.
Prince, Mary Miles. Bieber's Dictionary of Legal Abbreviations. 6th ed. Buffalo, NY: Hein, 2009. Bieber's Dictionary of Legal Abbreviations, 5th ed. at Google Books
Trinxet, Salvador. Template:Trinxet Dictionary of Legal Abbreviations and Acronyms Series. A Law Reference Collection, 2011, ISBN 1624680003 and ISBN 978-1-62468-000-7
Trinxet, Salvador. Trinxet Reverse Dictionary of Legal Abbreviations and Acronyms, 2011, ISBN 1624680011 and ISBN 978-1-62468-001-4.
Raistrick, Donald. Index to Legal Citations and Abbreviations. 3rd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008. This book focuses more on British and other foreign/international abbreviations.
Kavass, World Dictionary of Legal AbbreviationsList Of Common Legal Abbreviations Or TermsLon L. Fuller
Lon Luvois Fuller (June 15, 1902 – April 8, 1978) was a noted legal philosopher, who criticized legal positivism and defended a secular and procedural form of natural law theory. Fuller was a professor of Law at Harvard University for many years, and is noted in American law for his contributions to both jurisprudence and the law of contracts. His debate in 1958 with the prominent British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart in the Harvard Law Review (Vol. 71) was important in framing the modern conflict between legal positivism and natural law theory. In his widely discussed 1964 book, The Morality of Law, Fuller argues that all systems of law contain an "internal morality" that imposes on individuals a presumptive obligation of obedience. Robert S. Summers said in 1984: "Fuller was one of the four most important American legal theorists of the last hundred years".Marvin's Legal Bibliography
Legal Bibliography is a book by John Gage Marvin. It is a bibliography of law. It was the first publication of its kind to originate from the United States of America.This book is Marvin's best-known work. It was preceded by an 1843 edition of a work on international law by Sir James Mackintosh, with reading list, and an 1846 Catalogue of the Harvard Law Library including recent accessions. The Bibliography is alphabetical by author, with a topical index, and includes evaluative comments on the works, drawing on numerous sources. Despite the impression given by its short title, the Bibliography was an attempt to integrate other legal works into the Anglo-American tradition.In 1857, the Upper Canada Law Journal and Lower Courts Gazette said "Mr. Marvin's, Legal Bibliography, is by far the completest work of its kind we have had".Harvard University Library Notes said that this book was, "for many years" after its first publication, "the best American work of its kind".In the Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Virginia State Bar Association, this book was described as "good in its day, but now more than 40 years old".In 1914, Percy Winfield said that this book was a "valuable" guide "to the materials of English law", that it appeared to be little known in England, that the critical notes were appended to certain classics and reporters and were necessarily brief, especially in relation to the Year Books, that the book was an index of authors rather than topics, and that a new edition was needed.In 1988, Bookman's Yearbook said that the fact that this book was still in use indicated "the sorry state" that legal bibliography was in, the book being "like a third class Lowndes or Brunet".The Harvard Law Review said, in relation to Year-Book bibliography, that Marvin's Legal Bibliography discloses little that is valuable and its accuracy does not stand the test of verification.In his preface, Marvin says that upon reviewing this volume, he discovered that some titles were omitted, and that some dates were erroneous.Mary Joe Frug
Mary Joe Frug (1941–1991) was a professor at New England Law Boston from 1981 to 1991. She is considered a forerunner of legal postmodern feminist theory, and was a renowned postmodernist and feminist legal scholar. Much of her work was collected in the posthumously-published book Postmodern Legal Feminism. She authored the casebook Women and the Law.
On April 4, 1991, Frug was murdered on the streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts near the home that she shared with her husband, Harvard Law professor Gerald Frug, and their children Stephen and Emily.Paul M. Bator
Paul Michael Bator (June 2, 1929 – February 24, 1989) was an American legal academic, Supreme Court advocate and expert on United States federal courts. In addition to teaching for almost 30 years at Harvard Law School and the University of Chicago Law School, Bator served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States during the Reagan Administration.Richard Posner
Richard Allen Posner (; born January 11, 1939) is an American jurist and economist who was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago from 1981 until 2017, and is a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.Posner is known for his scholarly range and for writing on topics outside of his primary field, law. In his various writings and books, he has addressed animal rights, feminism, drug prohibition, same-sex marriage, Keynesian economics, and academic moral philosophy, among other subjects.
Posner is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, economics, and several other topics, including Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Sex and Reason, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, and The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy. Posner has generally been identified as being politically conservative; however, in recent years he has distanced himself from the positions of the Republican party authoring more liberal rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion. In A Failure of Capitalism, he has written that the 2008 financial crisis has caused him to question the rational-choice, laissez faire economic model that lies at the heart of his Law and Economics theory.Scott v. Harris
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a lawsuit against a sheriff's deputy brought by a motorist who was paralyzed after the officer ran his eluding vehicle off the road during a high-speed car chase. The driver contended that this action was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The case also involved the question of whether a police officer's qualified immunity shielded him from suit under Section 1983. On April 30, 2007, in an 8-1 decision, the court sided with police and ruled that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death." In a rare occurrence, the court accepted the presentation of video evidence of the high-speed pursuit. Such procedure is quite uncommon in the Supreme Court and was viewed as part of an interesting relationship between the Supreme Court and technology. The video had a strong effect on the Court's decision and is viewed as a major factor in how the court made its decision. The author of the opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, in a first-time occurrence ever, posted the video of the car chase online (for access to the video, see external links below).
Justice John Paul Stevens, the lone dissenter, argued that the videotape evidence was not decisive, as the majority claimed it to be, and that a jury should determine if deadly force was justified. He stated a jury should be used, instead of the case "being decided by a group of elderly appellate judges," a reference to himself and his colleagues on the court (this sentence is not in the text of the dissent, but he pronounced it while reading the opinion at bench).Three law professors created an experiment based on the video, showing it to over a thousand subjects and then asking them whether they thought the use of deadly force was reasonable. The study found "[a] fairly substantial majority did interpret the facts the way the Court did. But members of various subcommunities did not." The study and the disagreement over the reasonableness of the use of deadly force was reported in the Harvard Law Review.The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
"The Case of the Speluncean Explorers" is an article by legal philosopher Lon L. Fuller first published in the Harvard Law Review in 1949. Largely taking the form of a fictional judgment, it presents a legal philosophy puzzle to the reader and five possible solutions in the form of judicial opinions that are attributed to judges sitting on the fictional "Supreme Court of Newgarth" in the year 4300.The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide to engage in cannibalism, and select one of their number to be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.
The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death.
Fuller's account has been described as "a classic in jurisprudence" and "a microcosm of [the 20th] century's debates" in legal philosophy. It allows for contrasts to be drawn between different legal philosophies, with the main two being natural law and legal positivism. In the 50 years following the article's publication, a further 25 hypothetical judgments were written by various authors whose perspectives include natural law theory, consequentialism, plain meaning positivism or textualism, purposivism, historical contextualism, realism, pragmatism, critical legal studies, feminism, critical race theory, process theory and minimalism.The Indigo Book
The Indigo Book: An Open and Compatible Implementation of A Uniform System of Citation (formerly Baby Blue's Manual of Legal Citation) is a free content version of the Bluebook system of legal citation. Founded by New York University professor Christopher Jon Sprigman, authored collectively by Sprigman and a group of NYU law students, and published by Public.Resource.Org, it is an adaptation based on the 10th edition of the Bluebook as published by the Harvard Law Review Association in 1958, which had entered the public domain in the United States because its copyright had expired due to non-renewal.
The project was inspired by correspondence between Public.Resource.Org's founder Carl Malamud and a Nagoya University academic, who was threatened by lawyers representing the HLRA over plans to incorporate the Bluebook system into the open source citation management program Zotero. Sprigman has argued that the system of citation expressed in the Bluebook was effectively public domain because its mandated usage in courts made it an "edict of government", and because, barring trivial changes, the then-current 19th edition was nearly identical to the public domain 10th edition. Sprigman stated that the project's main goal was to allow the Bluebook's system of citation to be widely available at no cost, and allow others to collaborate on it under an open-source model.
The Indigo Book is an unofficial substitute to the official Bluebook and is not endorsed by the Harvard Law Review Association; in December 2015, the project faced legal threats over its original name, Baby Blue's, which lawyers representing the HLRA felt was too similar to the Bluebook trademark. These threats led to the renaming of the guide to The Indigo Book in March 2016.The Uneasy Case for Copyright
"The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs" was an article in the Harvard Law Review by future United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in 1970, while he was still a legal academic. The article was a challenge to copyright expansionism, which was just entering its modern phase, and was still largely unquestioned in the United States. It became one of the most widely cited skeptical examinations of copyright.In this piece, Breyer made several points:
That the only defensible justification of copyright is a consequentialist economic balance between maximizing the distribution of works and encouraging their production.
That there is significant historical, logical, and anecdotal evidence which shows that exclusive rights will provide only limited increases in the volume of literary production, particularly within certain sections of the book market.
That there was limited justification for contemporary expansions in the scope and duration of copyright.There was a formal reply by law student Barry W. Tyerman in the UCLA Law Review, and a rejoinder by Breyer, but the article appears to have had little impact on copyright policy in the lead up to the Copyright Act of 1976.
Seventeen years later, in their mathematical law and economics article "An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law" (1989), William Landes and Richard Posner systematically analyzed each of Breyer's arguments and concluded that "they do not make a persuasive case for eliminating copyright protection." In particular they noted that many of his arguments rested on imperfect copying technology, an argument which weakens with technological innovation.Toward a Fair Use Standard
"Toward a Fair Use Standard", 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990) (alt. citation: v.103, n5. March 1, 1990), is a 1990 law review article on the fair use doctrine in US copyright law, written by then-District Court Judge Pierre N. Leval. The article argued that the most critical element of the fair use analysis is the transformativeness of a work, the first factor in the statutory factors listed in 17 U.S.C. 107.
Leval's article is widely accepted as initiating a shift in judicial treatment of copyright fair use cases, toward a transformativeness analysis and away from emphasizing the "commerciality" analysis of the fourth factor. Prior to Leval's article, the fourth factor had often been described as the most important of the factors.
In his article, Leval noted:
I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original—if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings—this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.
Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses.
Leval's article was published with an accompanying article by Lloyd Weinreb "Fair's Fair: A Comment on the Fair Use Doctrine", 103 Harvard Law Review 1137 (1990), which generally critiqued Leval's thesis.Yale Law Journal
The Yale Law Journal is a student-run law review affiliated with the Yale Law School. Published continuously since 1891, it is the most widely known of the eight law reviews published by students at Yale Law School. The journal is one of the most cited legal publications in the nation and usually generates the highest number of citations per published article.The journal, which is published eight times per year, contains articles, essays, features, and book reviews by professional legal scholars as well as student-written notes and comments. It is edited entirely by students. The journal has an online companion, the Yale Law Journal Online, which features op-ed length pieces and responses from scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. Prior to 2009, the Yale Law Journal Online was known as The Pocket Part.
The Yale Law Journal, in conjunction with the Harvard Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, publishes the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, the most widely followed authority for legal citation formats in the United States.