United States Court of Appeals
For the Ninth Circuit
50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 800
Reno, Nevada  89501-1948
March 14, 1997

Procter Hug, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States Court of Appeals

Via Telecopier No. - (202)278-1555

Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Appellate Court and Circuit Administration Division
Suite 4-512
Washington, D.C.   20544

ATTENTION: ABA Citation Resolution

Dear Committee Members:

	I write on behalf of the Court Executive Committee of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning 
the American Bar Association’s Resolution on Citations.  The 
members of our Court Executive Committee include myself, 
Judge Browning, Judge Schreoeder, Judge Reinhardt, Judge 
Kozinksi, and Judge O’Scannlain.  Judge Hawkins has recused 
himself from this matter.

	I begin by indicating our strong support for the 
electronic dissemination of our Court’s published opinions.  
Indeed, this Court has had its opinions available on our own 
electronic bulletin board since 1988.  Many law schools 
through the country have also set up systems for accessing 
and retrieving our opinions electronically.  We support 
those efforts.

	We have, however, concerns about the alternative case 
citation system proposed by the ABA’s resolution, 
particularly the requirement of having the court issue a 
sequential number for the decisions.  The court’s docket 
number or case number is the key to the history of the 
cases, its current status, and all documents in the case.  A 
citation which does not include the docket number is of 
little value.  Any additional sequential number would have 
to be cross-referenced to the docket number.  And anyone 
contacting the court for information would need the court’s 
docket number.  This is particularly so as we move, in the 
next few years, towards having all court documents filed 
electronically.

	We also believe the resolution, as drafted, is not 
clear as to whether all decisions and dispositive orders of 
the court would require a sequential number, or just those 
decisions that have precedential values, or what we would 
consider “publishable”.  Nor do we favor requiring paragraph 
numbers.  We believe the court should be responsible for the 
text of the opinion and initial page numbering.

	We do not believe the case has been made for the 
citation system proposed by the ABA resolution.  We believe 
the current “Bluebook” system for citing opinions is an 
effective method of citing to court opinions.  We urge your 
committee once again to recommend against adoption of the 
citation system proposed by the American Bar Association.

	Thank you for the opportunity to comment.


Very truly yours,
s/

Procter R. Hug, Jr.
Chief Judge

cc:  Associates
       Cathy Catterson, Clerk of the Court