Short case citation
Original research draft · October 2026
Working pattern
[Distinctive short name], [volume] [reporter] at [pinpoint].
Capture from the source
Full antecedent; collision-free short name; new locator
Check before you use it
Check the antecedent after every significant rearrangement of text or notes.
Common error: A short name shared by multiple cases is not a reliable reference.
Completed example
Case names, reporter entries, court, pages, and the supplied short-form convention are fictional. This exercise does not prescribe the short-form rules of any particular real court or journal.
Crown Storage, 12 TRAIN Rep. at 161.
Read the supplied source facts
Fictional packet TRAIN-O13 contains a paragraph that first cites *Juniper Solar v. Crown Storage*, 12 TRAIN Rep. 150, 158 (Northmere Ct. App. 2025), in full. Three sentences later, the writer returns to the same opinion's printed page 161. Between those sentences the writer cites a second fictional case, *Juniper Solar v. Delta Carriers*, 12 TRAIN Rep. 240, 245 (Northmere Ct. App. 2025). The editorial convention supplied for the exercise allows a distinctive party-based short name with the reporter and pinpoint. Both full citations remain within the reader's immediate context.
Why this works
The selected short name distinguishes the intended case from the other Juniper Solar decision. Using Juniper Solar alone would leave the reader to infer which of the two cases the writer means, even though the reporter volume happens to be the same. The new pinpoint is 161; repeating the first citation's 158 would mislocate the newly discussed passage. Keep the reporter component because the supplied short-form convention requires it. The convenience of a short form depends on an accessible full antecedent and a name that remains unambiguous after editing.
When the facts change
If an editor moves the full Juniper Solar v. Crown Storage citation into another chapter, restore a full citation when introducing the case in this chapter. If another Crown Storage case is added nearby, reassess the short name rather than assuming the earlier choice remains distinctive. A document-level search can find competing names, but an editor still needs to read the local context and confirm the intended antecedent.
Apply the receiving court or publication’s requirements. These working forms do not establish citation permission, precedential weight, or support for a legal proposition.