I've said this before and I know it's been
pointed out by others before such as Tim Young, but case
names are not the same as the title of a book. NAQT
does not over-underline, I don't understand why both
circuit events and even official ACF events still do so.
The names of the parties often become reversed on the
way up the ladder. Plus, the parties change. Further,
it often makes a difference if you're citing to a
state or regional reporter. Bakke should be good
enough. Dartmouth should be good enough. Cohens should be
good enough. Miranda should be good enough, etc. After
having seen this pointed out several times in the past 2
years, I think I'm going to start being a pain in the
rear and refusing to give more than the information
required for identification of a case and then protest if
it's ruled wrong. I don't understand why this is so
difficult a concept for packet authors and editors to
understand.
My 3 cents,
Nathan Freeburg