The Student Room Group

How do I accurately use and cite case law?

Hey all,

Law newbie here. I am currently completing my first law essay, and was wondering if I need to explain a case when I cite it, or if it is accepted that it is self-explanatory.

For example - would I say:

Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result, as demonstrated in R v Example

OR

Can I simply say

Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result.¹
It depends on the provisions for your essay. If footnotes and bibliography are allowed, then I would go for the first option.

Briefly state the author or case name, and add the full case or source in the footnotes.

I. Citing a key case:

'Cheshire set the precedent that ...1'

1 R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844.

II. Citing a quote from an article:

'Young summarises this idea by proposing that ...1'

1 Alison L Young, 'In Defense of Due Deference' (2009) 72 MLR 554.
(edited 2 months ago)
Reply 2
Original post by username3729415
It depends on the provisions for your essay. If footnotes and bibliography are allowed, then I would go for the first option.
Briefly state the author or case name, and add the full case or source in the footnotes.
I. Citing a key case:
'Cheshire set the precedent that ...1'
1 R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844.
II. Citing a quote from an article:
'Young summarises this idea by proposing that ...1'
1 Alison L Young, 'In Defense of Due Deference' (2009) 72 MLR 554.

That is really helpful, thank you SO much. I'm terrified of getting an awful result, need to get it right!
Original post by Emski9
Hey all,
Law newbie here. I am currently completing my first law essay, and was wondering if I need to explain a case when I cite it, or if it is accepted that it is self-explanatory.
For example - would I say:
Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result, as demonstrated in R v Example
OR
Can I simply say
Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result.¹


Hello,

Because of what can sometimes be really restrictive word limits, I would advise that you only include the key legal principle unless the facts are necessary for context or critical analysis.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions please do let me know.

Charlie
Law LLB Student
Original post by Emski9
Hey all,
Law newbie here. I am currently completing my first law essay, and was wondering if I need to explain a case when I cite it, or if it is accepted that it is self-explanatory.
For example - would I say:
Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result, as demonstrated in R v Example
OR
Can I simply say
Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result.¹

are you familiar with oscola citations?
Reply 5
Original post by Emski9
Hey all,
Law newbie here. I am currently completing my first law essay, and was wondering if I need to explain a case when I cite it, or if it is accepted that it is self-explanatory.
For example - would I say:
Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result, as demonstrated in R v Example
OR
Can I simply say
Legal causation is established if the act is a substantial and operating cause of the result.¹

This should be your referencing bible:
OSCOLA Quick Reference Guide

Quick Reply