You must always follow court rules for citation of authority, but consider this idea: To increase readability, place your citations in footnotes instead of in the text of your brief or memorandum. Do not use footnotes for any other purpose. Why make your reader jump over nonsubstantive interruptions? (Bryan A. Garner is the moving force behind this idea. Count me in on that crusade.)
I know that this is not how the Illinois appellate courts write their opinions, and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(a) states that “Footnotes are discouraged, but, if used, may be single-spaced.” But I think that this Rule is addressing substantive (“talking”) footnotes as opposed to citation to authority.
Which of these two identical opinions are more readable? The first puts citations in text and the second in footnotes.
We hold that review of a grant of a directed verdict is de novo. City of Mattoon v. Mentzer, 282 Ill. App. 3d 628, 633, 668 N.E.2d 601 (1996). While we recognize that there is authority to the contrary in Illinois (Boatmen's Bank v. Dowell, 208 Ill. App. 3d 994, 1001, 567 N.E.2d 739 (1991); Johnson v. National Supermarkets, Inc., 257 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 1015, 630 N.E.2d 934 (1994); Cohan v. Garretson, 282 Ill. App. 3d 248, 256, 667 N.E.2d 1325 (1996); NWI International, Inc. v. Edgewood Bank, 291 Ill. App. 3d 247, 261, 684 N.E.2d 401 (1997)), we nevertheless find that de novo review is proper because the standard of review on appeal should be the same as that applied by the trial court, which, as City of Mattoon states: "fits the definition of de novo: '[a]new; afresh; a second time.'" (Emphasis in original). City of Mattoon, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 633.
ISBA Development Site
This website is for ISBA staff use only. All visitors should return to the main ISBA website.