The Volokh Conspiracy

Territory of Orleans:

I cited Territory v. Nugent, a pre-statehood Louisiana case, and the assiduous cite-checkers reported that 1 Mart. (o.s.) 108 (La. Terr. 1810), was wrong; the correct citation is:

1 Mart. (o.s.) 108 (Orleans 1810).

The territory was apparently known at the time as the Territory of Orleans. Cool factoid, though the citation form ends up being confusing as a result; I added a parenthetical noting that this is "a pre-statehood case from what is now Louisiana." See also "Dakota" and "Indian Terr.," as well as "Territory South of the River Ohio (Southwest Territory)," which yielded reported cases but for which the Bluebook doesn't give a separate abbreviation.

UPDATE: As two commenters pointed out, only part of what is now Louisiana — but the part in which this case was decided — was known as the Territory of Orleans.

Steve H:
If the Bluebook doesn't give a citation form, does the case truly exist at all?
1.6.2009 3:46pm
huh342:
Eugene:

I wrote my doctoral thesis on the congressional politics of bounding and dividing territories.

The Orleans territory was actually somewhat smaller than the eventual state of Louisiana. It was created upon the division of the Lousiana purchase into two components, the Orleans territory and the "District" of Louisiana, which was the remainder of the purchase and under the authority of the Indiana territory for a year, until it became the old large Missouri territory.

One thing that most people don't realize is that the names of territories very rarely correlate geographically with the states that share the same names. For example, the Michigan territory went through five geographic changes, and included parts of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas prior to eventually becoming the familiar geography just before statehood.

This is most pertinent in the case of Nebraska. Many people get confused about the Kansas-Nebraska Act. They ask, "why were people so upset about the mere possibility of slavery in Nebraska?" thinking that Nebraska territory was the same geography as Nebraska the modern state. One answer, of course, is that Nebraska was above the Missouri Compromise line. But more important, the Nebraska territory ran from modern-day Nebraska all the way to Canandian border in present day Montana.

matt
1.6.2009 3:48pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
I'll have to pop over to the law school library to double-check, but as I recall from browsing the old casebooks in my student days, those reporters are bilingual: the left side of every page is in French, the right side in English.
1.6.2009 3:51pm
Ira Brad Matetsky:
The ALWD Citation Manual does mention the "Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans", to be cited as "(Orleans)".

There was a Territory of Louisiana at the same time there was a Territory of Orleans. Ironically enough, the Territory of Louisiana included all of the land that the United States acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, except for the portion that eventually became the State of Louisiana.
1.6.2009 4:13pm
Joey Plummer (mail):
Someone with access to the cited document please tell us:

What was Ted doing in Orleans?
1.6.2009 4:19pm
MarkField (mail):

What was Ted doing in Orleans?


He was on tour. Edward Livingston and Jean LaFite (sp?) were big fans.
1.6.2009 4:31pm
fortyninerdweet (mail):

What was Ted doing in Orleans?

Searching for the perfect catfish, one would assume.
1.6.2009 4:35pm
Juniper Berry (mail):

What was Ted doing in Orleans?


Searching for the perfect catfish, one would assume.


Then he would most likely have ended up here:


http://tinyurl.com/822gaa
1.6.2009 5:04pm
tmittz:
And people wonder why students find citation stupid. I have to question the sensibility of a citation system that requires a parenthetical to make sense.
1.6.2009 5:04pm
TerrencePhilip:
tmittz,

perhaps I should buttress my next brief by finishing the argument section with, "cf., the library."
1.6.2009 6:38pm
Struthius:
huh342/Matt:

I'd like to read your thesis. I have access to ProQuest. Can you provide some search strings or other info?

Thanks,

RCM
1.6.2009 7:00pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
tmittz: I'm no fan of the Bluebook, but in fact this case was indeed decided by the territorial court for the Territory of Orleans, not for the Territory of Louisiana. So even if the law review wasn't fixated on the Bluebook, I think they'd be right to point out that the original citation was imprecise (even if not misleading).
1.6.2009 7:02pm
Ira Brad Matetsky:
Matt, I too would be interested in reading the dissertation, if you can post a link to it or the equivalent.

Eugene, where did you cite this case?
1.6.2009 7:07pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Ira: In my Symbolic Expression and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment piece, forthcoming in the Georgetown Law Journal.
1.6.2009 8:01pm
Matt Glassman:
Struthius / Ira:

My dissertation was titled “Building States: Institutions, Interests, and Actions in the Political Development of the American West, 1776-1912.”

My name is Matt Glassman.

I got my degree from Yale in 2007.

I also have a spin-off article from a chapter forthcoming, entitled "Why did the North reject Oregon?: Congress, Statehood, and Slavery, 1850-1859."

I'd be happy to send you a .pdf copy of either the diss or the spun article. Email me at MattGlassman312 "AT" gmail.com

cheers

Matt
1.6.2009 8:11pm
ll (mail):
So there I was, researching batture easements in Louisiana. And a case cited an earlier case in Louisiana Unreported Cases. Somewhat bemused, thinking "military intelligence" and "legal humor," I went down to our library and asked our librarian. His response: "Oh yes, we have that." And we walked over to the shelves were Louisiana Unreported Cases was in repose, with the unreported case that was cited reported in it.
1.6.2009 10:59pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.