Citation Signal - Signals That Indicate A Useful Comparison

Signals That Indicate A Useful Comparison

• Compare _____ with _______'

This signal is best used to compare two or more authorities that reach different outcomes as to a stated proposition. Because the relevance of the comparison may not be readily apparent to the reader, The Bluebook strongly recommends adding a parenthetical explanation after each authority. Either "compare" or "with" may be followed by more than one source, using "and" between each of them. In legal practice, the writer italicizes “compare,” “with,” and “and.” Compare must be used with "with", with the "with" preceded by a comma. If "and" is used, the "and" must also be preceded by a comma.

Example: To characterize the first element as a "distortion," however, requires the concurrence to second-guess the way in which the state court resolved a plain conflict in the language of different statutes. Compare Fla. Stat. 102.166 (2001) (foreseeing manual recounts during the protest period), with 102.111 (setting what is arguably too short a deadline for manual recounts to be conducted); compare 102.112(1) (stating that the Secretary "may" ignore late returns), with 102.111(1) (stating that the Secretary "shall" ignore late returns).

Example: One could say that imposing a servitude on Lucas's land is necessary in order to prevent his use of it from "harming" South Carolina's ecological resources; or, instead, in order to achieve the "benefits" of an ecological preserve. Compare, e.g., Claridege v. N.H. Wetlands Bd., 485 A.2d 287, 292 (N.H. 1984) (owner may, without compensation, be barred from filling wetlands because landfilling would deprive adjacent coastal habitats and marine fisheries of ecological support), with, e.g., Bartlett v. Zoning Comm'n of Old Lyme, 282 A.2d 907, 910 (Conn. 1971) (owner barred from filling tidal marshland must be compensated, despite municipality's "laudable" goal of "preserv marshlands from encroachment or destruction").

Example: Compare Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 105-107, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1467-1469, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945). **2007 with Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 395, 66 S.Ct. 582, 584, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946).

Example: A fifth State, Mississippi, excuses the prosecution from producing the analyst who conducted the test, so long as it produces someone. Compare Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 792 (Miss.1985) (cited by the Court), with McGowen v. State, 859 So.2d 320, 339-340 (Miss.2003) (the Sixth Amendment does not require confrontation with the particular analyst who conducted the test).