Citation Signal - Signals That Indicate Contradiction

Signals That Indicate Contradiction

• Contra

This signals that the cited authority directly contradicts a given point: opposition. Contra is used where "" would be used for support.

Example: Contra Fort Myers Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 588 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Tex. 1972).

Example: "Before Blakely, courts around the country had found that "statutory minimum" was the maximum sentence allowed by law for the crime, rather than the maximum standard range sentence. See, e.g., State v. Gore, 143 Wash.2d 288, 313-14, 21 P.3d 262 (2001), overruled by State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 118, 110 P.3d 192 (2005); contra Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2536-37."

Example: Former RCW 26.50.110(1) was not a “virtuosic specimen of legislative drafting,” and there is clearly a reasonable dispute as to what the legislature intended. Bunker, 144 Wash. App. at 413, 183 P.3d 1086; contra Madrid, 145 Wash. App. 106, 192 P.3d 909; Hogan, 145 Wash. App. 210, 192 P.3d 915.

Example: Contra, ante, at 690-691.

Example: "See People v. Hilt, 298 Ill.App.3d 121, 123, 125-26, 698 N.E.2d 233, 232 Ill.Dec. 395 (1998) (empty, torn, knotted piece of baggie, in plain view, gave officer probable cause to search car because baggie was a unique container, officer had previous experience with such containers, and stop occurred in area known for drug transactions). Contra Commonwealth v. Garcia, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 645, 647, 650, 614 N.E.2d 1031 (1993) (plain view observation of empty plastic baggie on rear floor of vehicle did not provide probable cause to search interior)." State v. Neth, 165 Wash.2d at 185.

Example: Because the TIA's language and purpose are comprehensive, arguments based on congressional silence on the question whether the TIA applies to actions that increase moneys a state tax system collects are of no moment. Contra, Winn, 307 F.3d, at 1017-1018 (relying on Dunn v. Carey, 808 F.2d 555, 558 (C.A.7 1986)).

• But see

Cited authority either contradicts the stated proposition implicitly or contains dicta that contradict the stated proposition. But see is used where "see" would be used for support.

Example: "Specifically, under Roberts, there may have been cases in which courts erroneously determined that testimonial statements were reliable. But see Bockting v. Bayer, 418 F.3d at 1058 (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)."

Example: To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1858 (1833)

Example: But see 418 F.3d, at 1058 (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (observing that it is unlikely that this occurred “in anything but the exceptional case”).

Example: "The Sixth Circuit correctly analyzed each charge as a separate offense for jeopardy purposes and held jeopardy terminated for intentional murder even though “jeopardy on the wanton murder charge may have continued after the trial and successful appeal.” Id. at 458. But see United States ex rel. Jackson v. Follette, 462 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir.1972) (allowing retrial on alternate means of committing a crime where the defendant defended against both means)." State v. Wright, 203 P.3d at 1042, Wash.,2009.

Example: The government's suggested approach assumes the validity of their conclusion even before the process of deduction has begun. But see Montana Power Co. v. Edwards, 531 F. Supp. 8 (D. Or. 1981) (adopting the approach attacked in this paragraph)…”

Example: The Federal Courts of Appeals have reached the same conclusion in applying the federal hearsay rule. United States v. Garnett, 122 F.3d 1016, 1018-1019 (C.A.11 1997) (per curium); United States v. Gilbert, 774 F.2d 962, 965 (C.A.9 1985) (per curiam); United States v. Ware, 247 F.2d 698, 699-700 (C.A.7 1957); but see United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 82 (C.A.2 1977).

• But cf.

Cited authority contradicts the stated proposition by analogy. The use of a parenthetical explanation of the source's relevance is strongly recommended.

Example: But cf. 481 U.S., at 25-26, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment) (Rooker-Feldman would apply because Texaco's claims necessarily called for review of the merits of its state appeal).

Example: But cf. 995 F.2d, at 1137 (observing that “n the ordinary tort claim arising when a government driver negligently runs into another car, jury trial is precisely what is lost to a plaintiff when the government is substituted for the employee”).

Example: "...courts have discretion to hear at sentencing from any person who might provide useful information, including victims of financial crimes. But cf. United States v. Fortier, 242 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 979, 122 S.Ct. 409, 151 L.Ed.2d 310 (2001)(finding “an absence of authority” on the issue of whether counsel for victims can participate in a sentencing hearing, and raising “misgivings” about the practice where the government had agreed not to argue for the very issues the victims' counsel did), overruled by statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1) (giving crime victims and their “lawful representative” the power to assert rights, including the right to be reasonably heard at sentencing)." (excerpt from United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1343 (D. Utah 2005))

Example: Implicit in their choice is the distinction between preferential and nonpreferential establishments, which the weight of evidence suggests the Framers appreciated. See, e.g., Laycock, “Nonpreferential” Aid 902–906; Levy 91–119. But cf. T. Curry, The First Freedoms 208–222 (1986).

"But" should be omitted from "but see" and "but cf." whenever one of these signals follows another negative signal:

Example: Contra Blake v. Kiline, 612 F.2d 718, 723-24 (3d Cir. 1979); see CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS 48 (4th ed. 1983).

Example: We caution, however, that our analysis might have been different if Lanciloti had shown that anyone had been excluded from jury service by the way the boundaries had been drawn (for example, to save the cost of reimbursing mileage) or if he had been tried, over objection, before a jury drawn from a district other than where the crime was alleged to have been committed, or if the clear legislative purpose had not been to create a broader and more representative jury pool. But cf. Laws Of 2005, ch. 199, § 1.