« Reception of Religiously Affiliated Law Schools at AALS | Main | Law School Hiring Thread, 2010-11, Thread Two »

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

"Dissenting in Large Part"

We may need a new Bluebook rule in light of today's dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski in Gonzalez v. Arizona (see pg. 63 of the slip opinion).

What's next? "Mostly dissenting" (a la Princess Bride)? Or "Only Concurring a Little?"

Posted by Steve Vladeck on October 26, 2010 at 03:44 PM in Steve Vladeck | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0134887ca4ca970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Dissenting in Large Part":

Comments

well "concurring in part and dissenting in part", or just "dissenting in part" is completely normal.

maybe they will correct it in the reporter

either way there is no need for a new bluebook rule, because any non majority opinion is quoted the same way in the bluebook (smith j. blanking) or (smith j. blanking in part)

Posted by: bob | Oct 26, 2010 7:46:10 PM

"Quibbling over the details" would be nice.

Actually, I like "dissenting in large part." It's much better than the more common "concurring dubitante."

Posted by: anon | Oct 26, 2010 5:04:08 PM

Concurring in name only?

Posted by: Pam | Oct 26, 2010 4:14:12 PM

Post a comment