Quick Bluebook Question

[LULAW1982]

If I cite a case name in a sentence, do I need to include the case name again when I do the full cite? 

IE
 In Cisarik v. Palos Community Hosp., the court noted that a comparison of video evidence to photographic evidence is not a fair comparison due to video evidence being a superior form of medium. CASE NAME AGAIN??? 144 Ill. 2d 339 (1991).     

[Jumboshrimps]

If I cite a case name in a sentence, do I need to include the case name again when I do the full cite? 

IE
 In Cisarik v. Palos Community Hosp., the court noted that a comparison of video evidence to photographic evidence is not a fair comparison due to video evidence being a superior form of medium. CASE NAME AGAIN??? 144 Ill. 2d 339 (1991).     

Nope. Just "144 Ill. 2d 339 at ____ (1991)"

[LULAW1982]

Is it essential to have a page number?

[Jumboshrimps]

In your example, yes. The only time you don't need a pincite is when you are citing the entire case, generally. It's rare that you would do that.

[lah05]

Is this a short form citation?  If not (which is my assumption), use a comma rather than "at" between the first page and the pincite.  "144 Ill. 2d 339, ___ (1991)." 



     

[LVP]

Is this a short form citation?  If not (which is my assumption), use a comma rather than "at" between the first page and the pincite.  "144 Ill. 2d 339, ___ (1991)." 

Correct.  And if it is, then you use the at but omit the starting page and year:

"144 Ill. 2d at ___."

Also, don't cite to Ill. 2d.  Cite to N.E. or N.E.2d, if therein.

The correct long cite is:

579 N.E.2d 873, ___ (Ill, 1991).  (ETA: This is wrong, see below)

The correct short cite is:

579 N.E.2d at ___.

[Someone]

And in your example, write out "hospital" in full.  See BB R. 10.2.1(c).

[FreddyPharkas]

If I cite a case name in a sentence, do I need to include the case name again when I do the full cite? 

IE
 In Cisarik v. Palos Community Hosp., the court noted that a comparison of video evidence to photographic evidence is not a fair comparison due to video evidence being a superior form of medium. CASE NAME AGAIN??? 144 Ill. 2d 339 (1991).     

Nope. Just "144 Ill. 2d 339 at ____ (1991)"

You're wrong. Check out examples in Rules B2 and B4.1. Did you just give out advice without actually knowing whether it was correct or not, or were you trying to mislead?

I have NEVER seen a cite like you are saying.

[FreddyPharkas]

In your example, yes. The only time you don't need a pincite is when you are citing the entire case, generally. It's rare that you would do that.

Correct.

[FreddyPharkas]

Is this a short form citation?  If not (which is my assumption), use a comma rather than "at" between the first page and the pincite.  "144 Ill. 2d 339, ___ (1991)." 

Correct.  And if it is, then you use the at but omit the starting page and year:

"144 Ill. 2d at ___."

Also, don't cite to Ill. 2d.  Cite to N.E. or N.E.2d, if therein.

Depends on the purpose of the document, generally this is good advice, but it really depends. I've had to put documents into state courts that specified state citations. However, given the OP's apparent level of knowledge, this is probably for some 1L assignment, so yes, the regional reporter is appropriate probably.

The correct long cite is:

579 N.E.2d 873, ___ (Ill, 1991).

Incorrect. You need a period after Ill, and no comma after Ill.

The part in parens should state: (Ill. 1991), check out table 1 to verify.

The correct short cite is:

579 N.E.2d at ___.

579 N.E.2d 873. would also work if the short cite was to the entire case. Also, Cisarik, 570 N.E.2d at ___. would work. There isn't one correct way to do a short cite, and typically including the case name is a better alternative. Rule 10.9(a)(i).