The normal way to indicate omitted text is using three dots (“. . .”). But sometimes, especially in some documents filed with the Supreme Court, I see “* * *” used instead. Any sense of why this is so, and which tends to be preferred, and by whom? Is there some difference in meaning that I’m missing? The Supreme Court’s own opinions generally (or perhaps even always, or almost always) use the “. . .” ellipsis marker rather than the “* * *” marker.
Note: There are various guidelines about how to indicate omitted paragraphs, omitted text at the start or end of sentences, and so on; I’m not discussing that here. Likewise, I’m not discussing the centered row of three asterisks used as a delimiter between parts of a document, especially before the conclusion of the document.
UPDATE: Various commenters, as well as my Mayer Brown LLP colleague Charles Rothfeld, make things clear for me: This is the practice of the Solicitor General’s office, which was then retained by many of its alumni, and emulated by others (as the styles of highly regarded organizations often are).
Here is also a suggestion, based on a suggestion offered to me by Charles Rothfeld: If either a court or a prominent repeat litigant before the court — the Solicitor General’s office — routinely uses “* * *,” it’s good to use that. But if the usage is uncommon before a particular court, it’s better to stick with the more common “. . .,” since the asterisks might seem confusing, distracting, or pretentious. As usual, let Horace be your guide.
Some dude says:
I’ve never seen “* * *” and wouldn’t have know what it meant.
August 26, 2010, 6:03 pmamuea says:
I think the SG’s style guide suggests using it.
August 26, 2010, 6:07 pmWill K says:
The Ohio Supreme Court uses the ***. Never understood why.
August 26, 2010, 6:19 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
My practice in court documents is to use ellipses if the omitted material all occurs within the same sentence or paragraph, but to use asterisks if I am blockquoting multiple paragraphs and entire paragraphs of text are omitted from the block quotation. This practice may be idiosyncratic; though I could have sworn that I’ve seen asterisks used in this fashion in court opinions and documents before I adopted it as my own.
Doing a quick Google search, I came across this fragmentary document, however, which seems to suggest that a Government Printing Office style manual once indicated that asterisks were the preferred method of indicating omissions for some reason. So maybe the practice of using asterisks that you note was borrowed from such manuals?
August 26, 2010, 6:20 pmCheckEnclosed says:
I use “* * *” to indicate that an entire paragraph, or more, has been ellided, and “. . . ” for smaller chunks of text, but do not remember how I learned to do that.
August 26, 2010, 6:21 pmJ. Aldridge says:
* * * is predominant in 18th and 19th century writing. No harm in using it today.
August 26, 2010, 6:22 pmSteve says:
I only use three asterisks when I’m omitting paragraphs. I think you said that you don’t want to talk about that issue, but I don’t have anything else to talk about.
August 26, 2010, 6:23 pmOrin Kerr says:
I think they are just two different and equivalent ways of doing the same thing.
August 26, 2010, 6:24 pmSteve T says:
I use three dots (“. . .”) when there is no line break in the text I’m quoting, especially if I’m just leaving out a few words or part of a sentence. When I’m leaving out a substantial chuck of text, perhaps a few paragraphs, then I use three asterisks (“* * *”) centered on a separate line to show the omission. That seems intuitively right to me, but I’m not sure others understand what I’m doing, especially now that you ask.
August 26, 2010, 6:24 pmBaseballhead says:
Now that everyone has a computer, I hope there’s a move from the traditional three periods (…) to the actual ellipsis symbol (…).
The world’s tiniest nit to pick, I know, but there it is.
August 26, 2010, 6:25 pmzippypinhead says:
Long ago while laboring in the pit as a junior law journal editor, I was taught that the centered asterisk ellipsis ” * * * ” is supposed to be used for extended omissions exceeding (I think) 50 words or crossing paragraphs. Four dots is for a shorter ellipsis beginning at the end of a sentence, while three dots is for an ellipsis not beginning with a sentence break. I see that Rule 5.3 of the somewhat out-of-date edition of the Bluebook I currently have on my desk doesn’t mention asterisks at all.
This is from memory, and I can’t recall if it was based on some Neanderthal edition of the Bluebook, our school’s supplemental law review style guide, or some non-legal reference like Strunk & White.
August 26, 2010, 6:26 pmMikhail Koulikov says:
For all that’s worth, I’ve seen * * * used most often in various state statutes’ pocket parts, to indicate sections or subsections that have not been amended since the publication of the main bound volume.
August 26, 2010, 6:31 pmTransplanted Lawyer says:
What zippypinhead said. Asterisks for lengthy omissions, particularly entire paragraphs. I’ve no idea at all where I learned that and I can’t find it in either the HBB or CSM anywhere.
August 26, 2010, 6:32 pmzippypinhead says:
Bingo! Section 5.3 of the June 2007 Office of the Solicitor General Citation Manual (not sure it’s still current, but it’s the only version I have handy) says in relevant part:
August 26, 2010, 6:37 pmAnAnswer says:
The SG’s style guide requires it. I think it is useful to distinguish between omissions by the author (“* * *”) and omissions in the source text (“. . .”). This can be done with parentheticals as well, but this convention signals information as the quoted material is read.
August 26, 2010, 6:38 pmAJK says:
The bluebook insists upon periods separated by spaces. The reasons for this are not obvious to me.
August 26, 2010, 6:42 pmAnon Y. Mous says:
LOL.
August 26, 2010, 6:49 pmjhn says:
@ Baseballhead & AJK
The Bluebook can be pretty clueless about typography, but in this case it might be because an ellipsis character followed by a period looks funny.
In real writing, an ellipsis by itself can imply ellipsis plus period.
My pet peeve is — or – instead of —.
August 26, 2010, 7:02 pmjhn says:
Hey, the engine converts hyphen hyphen into em dash. Nice.
August 26, 2010, 7:03 pmLiz says:
I was WONDERING about that. /1L
August 26, 2010, 7:11 pmDebrah says:
It’s nothing short of unseemly to use asterisks in place of mere dots.
This awards neon-like significance to omitted material and plasters gaudy elements onto what one might assume to be Volokh-esque afflatus.
Stick with dots!
August 26, 2010, 7:14 pmDavid Welker says:
I agree. I prefer dots. A bunch of asterisks are distracting, at least to me.
August 26, 2010, 7:20 pmDebrah says:
Agreed!
August 26, 2010, 7:25 pmJoseph Slater says:
Here’s a question I recently dealt with while working on a casebook for West. When quoting cases, some of which use asterisks and some of which use elipses, should the casebook have an overall “style” that uses just one or another? We decided yes, although I’m still unsure about that decision.
August 26, 2010, 7:29 pmTed says:
EV,
I use “* * *” instead of an ellipsis because my state’s appellate courts’ style manual recommends its use when writing opinions. Because my briefs are filed in those courts, I figure I should follow their suggestions; they are clearly comfortable with its use and understand it. I would be more hesitant when writing for other audiences that are more likely used to the more common ellipses.
WTF? I don’t see why you care about punctuation used to quote material. You don’t appear to even cite sources. See here and here.
August 26, 2010, 7:30 pmJust Dropping By says:
You’re not alone. I was advised by a partner at my law firm to do that very shortly after I became an attorney and I’ve stuck with that format ever since.
August 26, 2010, 7:48 pmMDT says:
IIRC “* * *” was standard genre-fiction notation for “change of scene.” As a non-lawyer, if I encountered three asterisks in a legal document, my default assumption would be “large ellipsis.”
August 26, 2010, 8:09 pmJeff S. says:
It seems to add confusion. When I see asterisks, I assume omitted letters to protect sensitive souls from vulgarity.
August 26, 2010, 8:41 pmBill S. Preston, esquire says:
If only Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld had covered this particular issue in a Seinfeld episode.
“So the teller, she gives me this look . . . .”
August 26, 2010, 8:48 pmbilly q. says:
As mentioned above, “* * *” is old school, sort of like using “&c.” for “et cetera” instead of “etc.”
August 26, 2010, 9:04 pmChristopher Fotos says:
This must be a lawyer thing. I’ve spent most of my professional life as a writer, reporter and editor, including about three years as a copy editor, and I’ve never encountered asterisks used that way.
August 26, 2010, 9:07 pmMark says:
Most SG alumni eventually wean themselves from the ellipsis rule and other citation habits learned in that office (including the non-italicization of the “v.” in case names), but I believe that the Mayer Brown contingent has remained loyal to the SG style, at least in Supreme Court briefs. Is that where you’ve been seeing asterisked ellipses?
August 26, 2010, 9:10 pmbilly q. says:
I’ve seen it in law school case books.
August 26, 2010, 9:15 pmTeh Anonymous says:
OT-ish: I’ve seen three asterisks occasionally as something that marks the end of a section, in fiction. (All from the 20th C., I think, though I can’t think of specific examples.)
August 26, 2010, 9:20 pmDeezrightwingnutz says:
From time to time, I’ve thought that it would be fun in quotable writers would end paragraphs with parentheticals like [author's emphasis]. That way when they were quoted, and someone wanted to emphasize something within the quoted text, they be totally screwed.
August 26, 2010, 9:31 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
It looks to me like the stage that some girls go through, maybe around age 12 or 13, when they dot their i’s with little hearts.
August 26, 2010, 9:41 pmRoger says:
The bluebook is wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Anyway, I first came across this in law-school casebooks and figured it was how the books distinguished between ellipses in the original case and omissions made by the editor/author of the casebook. But that wouldn’t account for its use in briefs (which I confess I have never noticed).
August 26, 2010, 9:53 pmbilly q. says:
Perhaps ironically, period-based ellipses always seemed a bit phallocentric to me.
August 26, 2010, 10:41 pmOrin Kerr says:
Yes, I think you’re right. Less distracting.
Actually, if I’m reprinting a case that uses either ellipses or asterisks, I just take them out. I also generally edit cases without adding ellipses or asterisks, at least unless it’s absolutely critical for the reader to know something is missing. I then have a short paragraph at the beginning in which I explain my editing choices and recommend that readers consult the original sources if they need to quote from the materials.
August 26, 2010, 10:56 pmbbbeard says:
Umm, okay….
My 2¢ is that the style guide we used in high school (Strunk and White? Turabian?) recommended three periods for elided material within a sentence, and four periods for elided material that included at least one sentence break (including multi-paragraph elisions). I think using multiple asterisks must be archaic. It’s just another example of how the legal community is insular and out of touch with the mainstream.
August 26, 2010, 11:06 pmbbbeard says:
Shouldn’t that be Volokhian afflatus?
August 26, 2010, 11:07 pmCharles says:
Because I’m an SG wannabe, I’ve used * * * in place of ellipses in my motions and briefs, relying on the SG’s style guide. I use * * * * (usually centered) to denote the omission of entire paragraphs, especially when omitting entire paragraphs or subsections of statutes.
August 26, 2010, 11:24 pmGrange95 says:
“***” is required by Iowa appellate rules for ommissions of pages of exhibits or the transcript in the appendix (the record on appeal). I don’t use “***” for any other reason. “…” with proper formatting can easily indicate omission of a paragraph(s).
August 27, 2010, 12:08 amMark Horning says:
I would use an ellipsis. Were I to omit text at the end of one paragraph and at the beginning of another I would use an ellipsis at the end of one, insert a paragraph break and then a second ellipsis to denote the words omitted from the first part of the next paragraph.
If I saw several asterisks I would initially think that the text had been redacted, rather than omitted.
August 27, 2010, 12:33 amDuffy Pratt says:
It’s safer just to use “yada yada”
August 27, 2010, 12:38 amrc says:
*** is the official symbol for “long string of profanities.”
Just be glad that you’ve been spared the angry text.
August 27, 2010, 1:01 amkovarsky says:
it’s a best practice to use the SG guidelines, which use “***.”
August 27, 2010, 1:52 amMike Dodson says:
The Solicitor General’s Style Guide notwithstanding, if it is to be published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, it must comply with their style manual unless an exception is specifically requested. The latest edition is the 30th (2009). It says:
QUOTE
8.78. Three asterisks (preferred form), separated by en quads, are used to denote an ellipsis within a sentence, at the beginning or end of a sentence, or in two or more consecutive sentences (see also rule 8.85). If periods are used instead of asterisks they are also separated by en quads. To achieve faithful reproduction of excerpt material editors should indicate placement of terminal period in relation to an ellipsis at the end of a sentence. [An example is given.]
8.79. Three periods may be used to indicate ellipsis; four periods, when sentence is brought to a close. [Another example is given.]
8.80. Neither asterisks nor periods are overrun alone at the end of a paragraph.
8.81. When both asterisks and periods for ellipsis occur in the copy and periods are not specifically requested, use asterisks throughout.
8.81. A line of asterisks (or periods) indicates an omission of one or more entire paragraphs. In 26-1/2-pica or wider measure, a line of “stars” means 7 asterisks indented 2 ems at each end of the line, with the remaining space divided evenly between the asteriks. In measures less than 26-1/2-picas, 5 stars are used. Quotation marks are not used on line of asterisks or periods in quoted matter. Where line of asterisks ends complete quotation, no closing quote is used.
END QUOTE
Thus spake The Public Printer.
August 27, 2010, 8:10 amDJR says:
I sometimes use * * * (with tabs in-between, centered) when I want to start a new topic in a brief, but do not want to use a new subhead. For some reason I feel guilty saying this.
August 27, 2010, 8:14 amDebrah says:
It certainly sounds better when I say it.
August 27, 2010, 8:57 ammerevaudevillian says:
(This doesn’t really answer the question.) The OED notes that the use of three asterisks to indicate an omission extends back to at least 1645: “M. CASAUBON Temp. Evils 47 Set out as imperfect with three asteriscs.”
August 27, 2010, 9:05 amAnderson says:
I’m surprised no one has pointed out that asterisks are less ambiguous. Ellipsis marks are sometimes used to imitate a trailing-off voice, or for drama: “he locked the barn door … after the cow was gone.”. (Not a good practice in legal writing perhaps, but I’m sure I’ve done it.)
August 27, 2010, 9:27 amJoseph Slater says:
Your vote of confidence in the system we chose makes me feel better (seriously). But I’m curious about your practice. Are you talking just about when you edit cases for classes as, say handouts, or when you do academic writing (including casebooks)? I take it your reason is that you think elipses or asterisks are generally too distracting, or their distracting-ness outweighs the value of conveying that you’ve deleted something.
I must say, in writing a casebook, it never even occurred to me that this would be permitted — you couldn’t do that with quotes in a law review article, could you? But now I’m working on another casebook, so this all interests me.
August 27, 2010, 9:44 amuh_clem says:
Everyone may have a computer, but not everyone has a computer with the Windows-1252 character set. The common ISO standard character sets in the ISO/IEC 8859 family do not contain that character.
August 27, 2010, 9:50 amA.G. says:
I’ve seen this in at least one casebook. There the author used asterisks to note that (s)he was the one removing the text. If the Court removed the text, then there would be an ellipsis in the original case, and that ellipsis would appear in the casebook.
_____
Bill S. Preston, esquire says:
If only Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld had covered this particular issue in a Seinfeld episode.
“So the teller, she gives me this look . . . .”
They did. Or at least the spoken equivalent, “blah, blah, blah/”
August 27, 2010, 10:21 amzippypinhead says:
Argh! Professor Kerr, you may have come up with the one and only solution that is objectively wrong. If what you’re selectively quoting happens to be copyrighted (not published U.S. cases, of course), you’re also arguably skating on very thin ice under the fair use doctrine in clandestinely changing the substance of the quoted material without any signal of the alteration (and I suspect a general style disclaimer hundreds of pages away in the forward of the book may not be sufficient to get around this issue). And if we were ever opponents in litigation and you did this in a brief submitted to the court, I can imagine the phun I’d have at your expense in some footnotes (or maybe even the text) in my reply.
Then again, if you’re only doing this is a casebook, who cares? The shorter the better, and it’s not like law students ever rely on (or even necessarily remember) anything they read in the casebook, anyway.
August 27, 2010, 10:58 amKai Jones says:
The Oregon Appellate Style Manual (2002) dictates that omitted material within a paragraph be indicated by * * * (three asterisks separated by spaces) and that omitted material of a paragraph or more be indicated with * * * * * (five asterisks separated by spaces).
August 27, 2010, 12:13 pmPorkchop says:
Except for a transcriptional spelling error, that is word-for-word identical to my 1973 edition of the GPO Style Manual. As the GPO Style Manual indicates, “ellipsis” refers to the omission of original text, not to the device used to indicate the omission. Thus, “. . .” indicates ellipsis, but is “three periods.” My word processing software, however, refers to “…” as an “ellipsis.”
Supreme Court style, of course, does not necessarily comport with Bluebook or any other style. They are, after all, the Supreme Court.
August 27, 2010, 12:28 pmyankee says:
I’m not sure about particular courts, but I typically see * * * used between paragraphs of quoted material to indicate that a significant amount of text has been omitted. I would find it quite odd to use it within a paragraph.
August 27, 2010, 12:43 pmRoy G. Biv says:
Notable differences: The Supreme Court uses the following, non-BlueBook-ian form:
Smith v. Jones, 323 F. 3d 324 (CA8 2003)
August 27, 2010, 12:50 pmAnderson says:
I didn’t find a link to the citation manual at OSG’s website, so I dropped them an e-mail suggesting they post it, as a service to the legal community.
August 27, 2010, 2:49 pmAnderson says:
Roy, do they really put a space in “F.3d”? Because that is just wrong.
August 27, 2010, 2:52 pmPorkchop says:
Violation of the adjacent single capitals rule (BB Rule 6.1(a)) was a major no-no when I was a law journal editor. One of the articles editors explained to me, as well, that the Supreme Court was just “old-fashioned” when it came to citation style; the student editors at Columbia, Harvard, Penn, and Yale, collectively, had a far better grasp of citation forms, hence “8th Cir.” instead of “CA8″. (But still, 3 characters instead of 8 (including the space) to convey precisely the same information — perhaps the Supremes aren’t really as dense as he thought.)
August 27, 2010, 5:25 pmRoy G. Biv says:
They sure do. Just check out any case in U.S. Reports to see. Also, they insert a space between U. and S. when citing their own opinions:
Smith v. Jones, 548 U. S. 302 (2003)
And they don’t italicize the “v.” in case names either.
August 27, 2010, 5:39 pmDuffy Pratt says:
How could anyone ever find the cases they were citing with such sloppy citations?
August 28, 2010, 1:58 pmLots of Chatter says:
As several have noted, this originates with the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office, and they use both . . . and * * * to mean different things:
August 30, 2010, 4:28 pm. . . indicates that the Court or original source ommitted something
* * * indicates that the SGO is ommitting something that was originally in what they’re quoting from
A.G. and AnAnswer are right, and while otheres may do use *** for a variety of other purposes, if you’re looking at a brief from the SGO to SCOTUS, this is the correct answer.