11Rules, Restatements, and Uniform Laws

A paragraph says a model act governs a dispute because a citation to its section looks authoritative. The state enacted a different version. Another paragraph inserts § before a federal procedural rule number. Source classification solves the first problem; source-specific formatting solves the second.

Cite procedural and evidentiary rules; distinguish court rules from statutes; identify Restatement editions and comments; distinguish a uniform or model proposal from enacted law; and verify the version applicable to the proposition.

The ordinary practitioner pattern for current procedural and evidentiary rules is the abbreviated rule-set name followed by its rule number and subdivisions, without a section symbol or a date. Local conventions may differ. Historical rules need information identifying their historical status. Do not omit a material version merely because the current-rule convention is compact.

Model: Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(b).

The inspected rule requires a party citing a covered federal judicial disposition unavailable in a publicly accessible electronic database to file and serve a copy with the paper citing it. The federal provision and a circuit's separate filing instructions can impose different tasks; identify both when preparing an actual submission.

The official Federal Circuit compilation inspected for this handbook is dated October 6, 2026, and reproduces the federal rule separately from the circuit's local rule. Keep those two texts distinct. “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1” and “Federal Circuit Rule 32.1” are different sources even though their numbers match.

A Restatement synthesizes legal doctrine. It is not automatically an enacted statute or a binding judicial decision. A court may adopt, reject, distinguish, or use a Restatement provision. Cite the Restatement for its own statement; cite the adopting court when the proposition depends on that court's law.

The citation identifies the particular Restatement title, spells out its ordinal edition, gives the section and any comment locator, and identifies institutional publisher and publication year. A comment letter belongs after the section. It is not a subsection invented from the reader's preferred ordering.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. The packet describes a wholly fictional Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations, section 8, comment b, issued by the fictional Harbor Institute in 2020. Training citation: Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations § 8 cmt. b (Harbor Inst. 2020). This illustrates syntax only; no real Restatement text or edition is represented.

An edition change can alter both text and numbering. A citation to the Second edition cannot support words found only in a later edition. Save the title page or publication information actually inspected. If an online excerpt omits its edition and date, locate that information before completing a full citation.

A model rule is a proposed framework. A uniform act is drafted for adoption across jurisdictions, often with local variations. Their own published text may be relevant to comparison, history, or interpretation. Their adoption by a state is a separate fact requiring a separate source.

The Uniform Commercial Code's model section and a state's enacted commercial-code section are related but distinct authorities. If your sentence concerns the enacted rule in a state, cite and read that state's applicable provision. Do not assume adoption was word-for-word or that amendments occurred simultaneously.

A model-act citation ordinarily identifies the act, section, institutional source where applicable, and edition/year. An enacted version follows the statute rules. “As amended” can identify an amendment status, but it does not supply missing knowledge of which amendment was inspected. Record the actual version in the source card.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. Packet: Harbor Uniform Notice Act § 4 proposes ten days' notice. Harbor Code title 8, § 20(b) (2025) enacts fourteen days' notice. The assignment asks what Harbor's enacted code says. Cite the enacted provision and describe fourteen days. If comparing model and enacted law, cite both and explain the difference. A perfectly formatted model citation is inadequate for a sentence falsely describing enacted law.

Keep the institutional publisher distinct from the title and edition. For an actual American Law Institute Restatement, the conventions differ: Am. L. Inst. appears in Indigo's examples, while A.L.I. appears in the Bluebook's practitioner examples. Use the governing form consistently. Neither abbreviation answers which Restatement edition or comment you read. The fictional Harbor Institute models avoid choosing a form for an institution that did not issue them.

Rule: set + number + subdivision. Restatement: title/edition + section/comment + institution/year. Uniform or model text: identify its own version. Enacted version: jurisdiction's statute. Legal force requires analysis beyond the citation pattern.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. The supplied Uniform Harbor Transactions Act § 4 proposes that electronic consent may replace a signed paper form. Harbor Code § 40 adopts that rule in subsection (a), but subsection (c) excludes consent given on behalf of a minor. A treatise says the uniform act helps explain the code's background. No dates or publication identifiers beyond these locators are supplied.

Build a comparison around the actual difference:

The draft “Harbor permits electronic consent in every transaction” overstates the enacted text. Repair it to: “Harbor permits electronic consent to replace a signed paper form, except for consent given on behalf of a minor.” The supporting locations are § 40(a) and (c). A final full citation also needs the enacted source's publication information; the model's publisher and year cannot fill that gap.

A different sentence can use the model: “The enacted provision follows the model's electronic-consent approach but adds a minor-consent exception.” That comparison requires both texts. The treatise is useful for explaining its author's account of the relationship, but it cannot substitute for either side of the textual comparison.

Treat a Restatement adoption question the same way. A court may use a section's general rule while reserving a comment's separate question. Identify the precise proposition the court accepted before describing adoption. For an illustration, ask whether the facts in the illustration match the proposition you are drawing from it; citing the illustration does not make its hypothetical facts findings in your case.

This method also prevents a common citation shortcut: giving the model's section number after the enacted code name. When the model uses § 4 and the enactment uses § 40, each number belongs to its own instrument. Similar words do not create interchangeable addresses.

A rule publication can contain operative rules, explanatory notes, proposed amendments, historical text, and publication instructions. Each item can be useful, but a citation must identify the item used. Start by asking whether your sentence describes a command, an explanation of a change, or a proposed future command. Then locate the corresponding text instead of citing the whole compilation for every claim.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. The Harbor Rules of Procedure packet contains Rule 8(b), an advisory note accompanying a 2025 amendment, and a proposed 2027 amendment. Rule 8(b) requires a signed request. The 2025 note explains why that requirement was added. The proposed amendment would permit an identified electronic substitute. The packet states that the proposal has not been adopted. “Rule 8(b) permits the electronic substitute” is wrong under the packet; “the proposal would permit an electronic substitute” accurately identifies both the text and its status.

Build three source records. For the operative rule, record the rule-set title, number, subdivision, and relevant version. For the explanatory note, record the rule to which it belongs and the amendment date it explains. For the proposed amendment, record the proposal's own identifying document, date, and status. Do not reuse the operative rule's yearless current citation as though it identified a dated explanatory note or future proposal. A useful additional description makes the distinction visible even where the compact rule abbreviation stays the same.

Comments and illustrations need their own pinpoints

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A packet supplies Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations § 8, comment b, illustration 3, published by Harbor Institute in 2020. Section 8 states the general proposition; comment b discusses delayed notice; illustration 3 describes a receipt lost during delivery. To cite the illustration, use Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations § 8 cmt. b, illus. 3 (Harbor Inst. 2020). The comma separates two locator units; it does not make the illustration a separately authored publication.

Read the general section, the relevant comment, and the illustration together. An illustration demonstrates the stated conditions; it is not a report that a real court decided those facts. Describe it as an illustration. If a court later adopts the same approach, the court's decision supplies a separate proposition and requires its own citation and passage check. Neither a recognizable institution nor an elaborate section locator changes a hypothetical into a holding.

Restatement edition labels are part of the title. Preserve Second, Third, or another spelled ordinal; do not replace it with a reporter-style 2d or 3d. If a volume has a subject subtitle, retain the identifying subtitle where needed. If the supplied document is a tentative draft, proposed final draft, or other prepublication form, preserve its actual status and date. Calling a draft a completed Restatement conceals the very distinction the reader needs to assess the source.

Compare adoption provision by provision

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A model instrument defines notice in § 2 and provides a remedy in § 7. Harbor's enacted code adopts the definition in § 40 but declines the model remedy and supplies a different remedy in § 45. A citation to Harbor Code § 40 supports adoption of the supplied definition; it does not establish adoption of the model's entire remedial system. A claim about the remedy must cite and read § 45. The research task is a provision-level comparison, not a yes/no label attached to the whole act.

A practical comparison table has four columns: model provision, enacted provision, material textual difference, and the proposition that depends on that difference. Add version information to both source headings. When an amendment changes one side, reopen the relevant row. This prevents a once-correct comparison from retaining the old model numbering under a newly substituted edition. It also reveals gaps: a blank enactment cell means adoption of that provision has not been established, not that the model automatically fills the space.

When citing professional-conduct or other model rules, apply the same distinction. The published model describes its own text. A jurisdiction's adopted rules describe that jurisdiction's actual instrument. The name “model rule” is not a synonym for “rule binding this court.” If the paragraph deliberately compares the two, identify both clearly and explain the relevant difference rather than compressing them into one ambiguous citation.

Rule 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a copy of a written instrument attached as an exhibit to a pleading is part of the pleading for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). That is a procedural proposition about the relationship between an instrument and a pleading. It does not tell the reader what an actual instrument says. Those are two different claims, requiring different source checks.

The official compilation provides a useful locator exercise. Rule 10(a) and (b) appear on printed page 17. Subdivision (c) continues at the top of printed page 18, whose running header names Rule 11. The Rule 11 body begins below it. A citation to Rule 11 merely because its name appears at the top of that sheet would identify the wrong rule. Follow the subsection's continuity from the preceding page. Page furniture is not the boundary of every legal provision.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A complaint has an attached written contract designated Exhibit A. Section 4 of the contract states that delivery is due on June 1. The complaint's paragraph 12 alleges that the defendant missed that deadline. A source card should contain three separate entries: Rule 10(c) for the procedural rule; the contract's section 4 for its words; and complaint paragraph 12 for the allegation of a missed deadline. The rule citation cannot replace either factual locator. The allegation cannot establish by itself that the alleged failure occurred.

A careful paragraph might explain the procedural relationship with the rule citation and then say that the attached contract states a June 1 delivery date, citing the contract's own location. If it describes breach, it must distinguish the complaint's allegation from any adjudicated conclusion. Labeling the attachment part of the pleading does not permit the writer to call all its contents proven. Nor does this short rule-text exercise resolve disputes about what particular attachments qualify as written instruments; that issue would require the relevant decisions and procedural context.

The same discipline applies to advisory notes and model-law comments. A rule may impose a duty; a committee note may explain the change; a model comment may illustrate a proposed approach. Cite the source that performs the job your sentence assigns to it. When a sentence contains two jobs, split the sentence or provide the corresponding sources at the places where they are needed.

Test the source match. Cover the citation and identify the verb in the sentence: requires, explains, alleges, states, or holds. Then uncover the citation. Does this source have the role necessary to support that verb? If the answer depends on a different document, the citation is incomplete even if its rule number is formatted perfectly.