Hubbry Logo
In reIn reMain
Open search
In re
Community hub
In re
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
In re
In re
In re
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In re, Latin for 'in the matter [of]', is a term with several different, but related meanings.

[edit]

In the legal system in the United States, In re is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. In re is an alternative to the more typical adversarial form of case designation, which names each case as "Plaintiff v. (versus) Defendant", as in Roe v. Wade or Miranda v. Arizona.

In re is commonly used in case citations of probate and bankruptcy proceedings, such as the General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization, which was formally designated In re General Motors Corp. in court papers.[1] The term is also sometimes used for consolidated cases, as with In re Marriage Cases. It was adopted by certain U.S. states, like California, when they adopted no-fault divorce to reflect the fact that the modern proceeding for dissolution of marriage was being taken out of the adversarial system. It is also used in juvenile courts, as, for instance, In re Gault.

The Bluebook, a legal citation and style guide used by American lawyers and law schools, describes In re as a "procedural phrase", and requires that citations use In re to abbreviate 'in the matter of', 'petition of', 'application of', and similar expressions.[2]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

In re

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In re is a Latin phrase translating to "in the matter of," employed in legal nomenclature to designate proceedings lacking traditional adversarial parties, such as those concerning estates, bankruptcies, or . This terminology highlights the non-contentious nature of the case, focusing instead on the subject matter or entity at issue, and is routinely italicized in for emphasis. Originating from Roman legal traditions integrated into English , in re serves as a procedural caption in documents, pleadings, and case titles to denote matters requiring judicial oversight without opposing litigants. The phrase finds primary application in probate courts, where it titles cases involving the administration of a deceased person's estate, exemplified by formats like "In re Estate of [Deceased's Name]." In bankruptcy proceedings, in re denotes the debtor's matter, as in "In re [Debtor's Name]," facilitating reorganization or without direct opposition. Similarly, juvenile courts utilize it for delinquency or dependency actions, underscoring the protective rather than punitive focus of such hearings. This usage distinguishes in re proceedings from in personam actions, which target individuals, or in rem suits, which address property rights, though in re often overlaps with the latter in quasi-in-rem contexts. Notable applications include the landmark U.S. case (1967), which extended rights to juveniles in delinquency proceedings, illustrating the term's role in high-impact constitutional matters. In modern practice, in re remains a staple in U.S. federal and state courts, used consistently in citations per style guides like , ensuring clarity in and documentation.

Etymology

Latin Roots

The Latin phrase in re originates from classical Latin, where in functions as a preposition denoting location or relation, typically translated as "in" or "on," combined with re, the ablative singular form of res, signifying "thing," "matter," "affair," "property," or "circumstance." This construction literally conveys "in the matter of" or "concerning the thing," reflecting a grammatical structure common in Latin for introducing topics or contexts without specifying a personal subject. In the historical context of , in re appeared in discussions of legal matters involving (res) or civil status, often distinguishing proceedings that addressed universal over things rather than disputes between specific individuals, as seen in the classification of actiones in rem (actions concerning the thing) versus actiones (actions against the person). These actiones in rem, exemplified by the vindicatio for claiming of , bound all parties potentially affected by the res in question, emphasizing impersonal claims to status or goods without direct adversaries. Classical Latin authors employed in re in rhetorical and discursive to frame discussions of affairs, as in 's works where the phrase introduces topics related to public or private matters; for instance, in De senectute, quotes on what benefits family affairs most (quid maxime in re familiari expediret), and elsewhere uses variants like in re publica to denote engagement in public affairs (privatis in rebus et in re publica). Such usages in Ciceronian , drawing from oratorical traditions, highlighted in re as a versatile for contextualizing deliberations on communal or individual concerns. This foundational role in paved the way for its later integration into English legal terminology. The of profoundly shaped English legal terminology by establishing Latin as the dominant language of , supplanting in official documents such as statutes, writs, and charters. The invading , who spoke a of influenced by Latin, imposed this linguistic framework to centralize royal authority and facilitate administration across their new territories, marking a pivotal shift in the evolution of practices. This introduction of Law Latin not only preserved Roman and influences but also laid the foundation for enduring phrases like "in re," which derives from roots denoting "in the matter of" or "concerning a thing." Latin remained the standard language for legal treatises and records through the medieval period, as seen in works like Glanvill's De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae (c. 1190) and Bracton's On the Laws and Customs of England (mid-), which employed Latin for formal exposition. Chancery proceedings, emerging as an equitable jurisdiction in the late under I, utilized Latin in petitions and decrees to frame non-contentious issues like trusts and estates, with Latin as the recording standard until the . The phrase's integration into English legal practice evolved alongside the transition from verbose Latin pleadings in the medieval period to more stylized case titles by the , as formalized amid influences on legal scholarship. This development streamlined references in reports and arguments, with "in re" becoming a concise header for proceedings involving administration or . Its adoption as a standard procedural caption solidified in the ; William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of (1765–1769) reinforced this convention by invoking "in re" in discussions of property rights, such as the maxim "Nihil de re accrescit ei, qui nihil in re quando jus accresceret habet," solidifying its role in the of titles.

Definition and Meaning

Literal Translation

The Latin phrase in re consists of the preposition in, which indicates location, situation, or concern, combined with re, the singular ablative form of the noun res. The noun res fundamentally denotes "thing," but extends to meanings such as "matter," "affair," "circumstance," or "business" in a broad, abstract sense. Thus, a direct word-for-word translation of in re is "in the thing" or "in the matter," conveying a sense of being situated within or pertaining to a particular subject or issue. In grammar, the , as used here for re, expresses various relations including source, manner, or association with an abstract concept, often without a preposition but enhanced by one like in to specify involvement or reference. This construction allows in re to function idiomatically as "regarding" or "concerning," emphasizing relation to the topic at hand rather than physical location. Beyond legal contexts, in re appears in classical literature and to denote discussion or consideration of a subject in a neutral, interpretive manner. For instance, the poet , quoted by in De Amicitia, employs the phrase in "amicus certus in re incerta cernitur," translating to "a sure friend is discerned in an uncertain ," highlighting reliability amid ambiguity. Such usages underscore its role in philosophical on or human affairs, where it signals focus on an abstract "thing" or situation without adversarial implications. Over time, this general interpretive flexibility contributed to its adaptation in for denoting proceedings centered on a matter rather than parties. "In re" denotes legal proceedings centered on a specific "res," or thing, such as , status, or a matter of , rather than adversarial disputes between named parties, thereby underscoring the 's inherent authority to adjudicate the subject matter itself. This usage highlights a procedural framework where the focus is on resolving issues pertaining to the res, allowing the to exercise control over the entity or status in question without requiring traditional plaintiff-defendant alignments. The term plays a crucial role in establishing in non-adversarial contexts, such as determinations of status or administrative actions, where no specific opponents are named. In "in re" proceedings involving , the court may bind all potentially interested parties through to the res, such as by , rather than personal service on individuals. In these in rem scenarios, "in re" facilitates the court's power to issue judgments that affect rights in the thing universally, without the need for all claimants to appear, thus streamlining proceedings involving estates, trusts, or regulatory matters. Philosophically, the application of "in re" reflects the ancient distinction between in personam actions, which enforce personal obligations against specific individuals, and in rem actions, which concern or status enforceable against the world at large, a that has persisted into modern equity to balance individual duties with broader societal interests in tangible or intangible assets. This foundational separation ensures that proceedings under "in re" prioritize the integrity and disposition of the res over interpersonal conflicts, maintaining the court's supervisory role in equitable resolutions.

Historical Development

Early Usage in Common Law

The phrase "in re," derived from Latin and introduced into English legal practice through Norman influences following the of , began appearing in records to denote proceedings concerning a matter or estate rather than adversarial disputes between parties. Early uses of "in re" appear in medieval legal pleadings and records, particularly in administrative or inquisitorial matters such as wardships and inquisitions post mortem from the late 13th and 14th centuries. These proceedings investigated the lands and rights of deceased tenants-in-chief or minors under royal wardship and were often framed as inquiries into the matter at hand to determine feudal obligations and inheritance, reflecting the non-litigious nature of such royal commissions. By the , the application of "in re" had expanded within the equity of the , where it was used for petitions related to trusts and estates that lacked clear adversarial elements. This usage aligned with Chancery's development of the trust as a flexible device to circumvent strictures on land conveyance, distinguishing such matters from writs. The phrase also appeared in early statutory contexts, such as English proceedings under the 1542 Act (34 & 35 Hen. VIII, c. 4), the first dedicated . This statute authorized commissioners to investigate and distribute the assets of absconding debtors, treating the process as an inquiry into the debtor's affairs rather than a suit between named parties, which facilitated creditor-driven asset without traditional plaintiff-defendant framing. Such approaches persisted through subsequent amendments, like the 1571 Act (13 Eliz., c. 7), underscoring the utility of non-adversarial framing in collective remedies focused on the estate itself.

Adoption in American Jurisprudence

The adoption of the phrase "In re" in American began with the inheritance of English traditions during the colonial period, where it was employed in court records to denote proceedings concerning specific matters or individuals without adversarial parties. In , colonial courts frequently used "In re" in cases involving servants, debtors, and local disputes; for instance, in In re Sheppard (Middlesex County Court, April 10, 1676), the court voided a servant's attempt to assign executorship rights, illustrating early judicial oversight of personal legal capacities. Similarly, in , the General Court applied the phrase in In re Roxbury Schoole (1st Session, May 27, 1669), addressing the renewal of a and reflecting its utility in administrative and matters. These usages demonstrate how "In re" served as a foundational tool for framing non-litigious proceedings, directly carried over from English precedents into colonial charters and local court practices. The formalization of "In re" in the federal judiciary occurred with the establishment of the U.S. court system under the , which empowered federal courts to issue writs and handle matters akin to those in English equity and , thereby incorporating the phrase into national legal nomenclature without explicit statutory mandate. Its application expanded significantly in the through bankruptcy legislation, where proceedings often lacked traditional plaintiff-defendant structures; the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, the first such federal law, prompted cases like In re Chadwick et al. (W.D. Pa., circa 1803), which invoked the act's provisions on creditor assignments and marked an early federal reliance on "In re" for matters. Subsequent laws, including the Bankruptcy Act of 1841, further entrenched the convention in federal dockets, aligning U.S. practices with roots while adapting to emerging economic needs. In the 20th century, "In re" achieved greater standardization through precedents and citation guides, solidifying its role in uniform legal reporting across jurisdictions. The Court's use in high-profile cases, such as In re Yamashita (327 U.S. 1, 1946), which reviewed a military tribunal's for a Japanese general accused of war crimes, exemplified its application in extraordinary proceedings and influenced procedural consistency in federal and state courts. Concurrently, the first edition of A Uniform System of Citation (commonly known as ), published in 1926 by the editors of major law reviews, codified "In re" as the abbreviated standard for phrases like "in the matter of" or "petition of," promoting nationwide uniformity in case naming and citations. This evolution ensured "In re" remained a precise indicator of procedural matters, distinct from adversarial naming conventions.

Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization

In bankruptcy proceedings, particularly under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 of the , enacted via the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978), the phrase "In re" serves as the standard prefix for case titles, signaling that the matter concerns the debtor's financial reorganization without implying an adversarial contest between specific parties. This convention aligns with the Code's structure, where Section 1101 defines key terms like "debtor in possession" to enable the debtor to manage its affairs during restructuring, often culminating in a confirmed plan that binds creditors and facilitates debt adjustment or asset sales. A prominent example is the 2009 filing by General Motors Corporation, captioned In re General Motors Corp., initiated on June 1, 2009, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 09-50026). In this case, the "In re" designation underscored the focus on the corporation's estate as the central "res," allowing for a rapid reorganization that involved selling assets to a new entity, reducing liabilities, and emerging from bankruptcy within 40 days, thereby preserving operations without the traditional plaintiff-defendant dynamic. The role of "In re" in such titles emphasizes the in rem nature of bankruptcy jurisdiction, where the proceeding revolves around the debtor's and obligations rather than personal disputes, promoting equitable treatment of claims and the feasibility of reorganization plans under Sections 1121–1129 of the Code. This approach contrasts with ordinary civil litigation by centering the debtor's estate, which helps streamline creditor negotiations and court oversight. Internationally, the equivalent "Re" is used in insolvency cases under the Insolvency Act 1986, which governs corporate administration and . For instance, Re Maxwell Communication Corp. plc (1991) involved an administration order from the leading to estate following the company's collapse amid substantial debts, with a parallel U.S. Chapter 11 filing using "In re". Here, the titling similarly highlighted the non-adversarial focus on the insolvent entity's assets, enabling cross-border coordination with U.S. Chapter 11 elements to distribute proceeds to creditors under Sections 8–15 and 72–251 of the Act.

Probate and Guardianship

In proceedings, the phrase "In re" is commonly employed to title cases involving will contests and estate settlements, where the focus is on the estate itself rather than named adversarial parties, facilitating judicial resolution of disputes. For instance, in In re Gannon's Will, a New York court addressed the validity of a contested will through administration centered on the estate's assets and beneficiaries. This underscores the procedural emphasis on administering the decedent's property equitably, often without requiring formal opposition between specific litigants. In guardianship applications under state s, "In re" similarly highlights the ward's status as the central matter, enabling courts to appoint protectors for incapacitated individuals without framing the action as a dispute between contestants. A notable example is In re Guardianship of , where the Court of Appeals determined guardianship for a severely disabled adult based on her , prioritizing the ward's needs over familial conflicts. Such proceedings ensure protective oversight for vulnerable persons, with the estate or individual serving as the res under review. The procedural function of "In re" in these contexts allows for court oversight of assets in probate and guardianship without necessitating adversarial litigation, as standardized in the Uniform Probate Code (1969). Under the UPC's supervised administration provisions (Article III, Part 5), personal representatives manage estates under judicial guidance via informal or formal processes that minimize contests, while guardianship sections (Article V) enable limited protective orders for asset control absent full litigation. This approach, rooted in American jurisprudence's adoption of equity principles for estate matters, promotes efficient resolution while safeguarding interests.

Juvenile Delinquency and Family Matters

In juvenile proceedings in the United States, the caption "In re" is employed to denote cases involving minors alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct, reflecting the civil or rehabilitative nature of such hearings rather than a traditional criminal prosecution. This format treats the juvenile as the subject matter or "res" of the proceeding, emphasizing protection and guidance under the doctrine, where the state acts as a surrogate parent. A landmark illustration is , 387 U.S. 1 (1967), in which the U.S. held that juveniles facing potential institutional commitment in delinquency hearings are entitled to fundamental protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, including notice of charges, the , confrontation of witnesses, and protection against . The decision reversed the adjudication of 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who had been committed to a state industrial school for making an without these safeguards, thereby transforming juvenile courts by mandating procedural fairness akin to adult criminal trials while preserving their rehabilitative focus. In family law contexts, particularly and custody determinations, "In re" similarly captions proceedings to center the matter on the child or family unit as the core interest, facilitating resolutions that prioritize welfare over adversarial conflict. This approach avoids the confrontational "v." notation, which could stigmatize participants in sensitive domestic disputes by implying criminality or enmity. For instance, , 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), consolidated multiple writ petitions from same-sex couples challenging California's statutory restrictions on under the state , using the "In re" format to address the unified question of marital for all couples. The California ruled 4-3 that limiting to opposite-sex couples violated equal protection and principles, granting same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry and invalidating the ban until Proposition 8's enactment later that year. Overall, the "In re" designation in these areas underscores the in rem character of the proceedings, where the court's focuses on the status or condition of the or rather than personal liability, promoting and reducing public stigma associated with youth or familial involvement in court. This convention aligns with broader juvenile and practices, ensuring decisions serve the of the minor while upholding constitutional rights.

Other Specialized Uses

In re is employed in habeas corpus petitions to seek of an individual's custodial status, particularly in cases raising constitutional concerns. For instance, in In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), the U.S. reviewed a habeas corpus petition challenging a military commission's conviction of a Japanese general for crimes, affirming the lower courts' denial of the writ while addressing jurisdictional and procedural issues. This application underscores the phrase's utility in procedural contexts focused on status rather than party disputes. In , particularly within U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations, In re titles denote proceedings against entities or individuals for regulatory violations, often involving complex financial instruments like derivatives. Such cases highlight In re's role in non-litigious enforcement actions aimed at market integrity without traditional adversarial naming. Internationally, In re (or its equivalent "Re") appears in rare constitutional reference cases in , where courts opine on the validity of legislation under the . In Re: Resolution to amend the , 1 S.C.R. 753, the considered a federal proposal to patriate the constitution with an entrenched , ruling that while held legal authority to proceed unilaterally, constitutional convention necessitated substantial provincial consent, influencing the framework for -based challenges to federal-provincial fiscal and rights-related powers. This usage reflects the phrase's adaptability in advisory proceedings that shape jurisprudence without direct inter-party conflict.

Citation Practices

The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (22nd ed. 2025) prescribes specific formatting for procedural phrases like "In re" in case names under Rule 10.2.1, which governs abbreviations in case citations. These phrases are abbreviated as "In re" and italicized when appearing in the title of non-administrative cases, ensuring clarity and uniformity in legal writing. For instance, the landmark juvenile rights decision is cited as In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Note that Rule 14.3, applicable to administrative adjudications, directs omission of such procedural phrases to streamline citations in agency contexts. The ALWD Guide to Legal Citation (7th ed. 2021), developed by the Association of Directors, adopts comparable conventions to for citing "In re" in non-adversarial proceedings, with Rule 12 addressing case names and emphasizing consistent and italicization for readability. This approach prioritizes uniformity across procedural matters lacking traditional adversarial parties, such as or cases, while allowing minor variations (e.g., italics over underlining in academic formats). Harvard Law Review guidelines, aligned with the Bluebook as a co-publisher, recommend using "In re" for citations involving matters without named parties, employing the full case name in the initial reference followed by approved short forms in subsequent mentions to maintain precision. This practice supports the Review's emphasis on formal, scholarly citation in articles discussing . Jurisdictional variations may influence application in practice, but U.S. federal and state courts generally adhere to these core rules.

Variations Across Jurisdictions

In civil law jurisdictions like , the Latin phrase "In re" is rarely employed in case naming, as legal traditions favor descriptive French terminology rather than Latin procedural indicators. Instead, non-adversarial or matter-specific proceedings may be titled using phrases such as "Affaire concernant" (case concerning), particularly in international or contexts where the matter involves regulatory or jurisdictional issues under frameworks like the Brussels I (recast) (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012). In nations, such as , the heritage preserves the use of "In re" in abbreviated form as "Re" for proceedings like bankruptcies, probate, or reorganizations, aligning closely with British conventions. For instance, the case Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 exemplifies this, where "Re" denotes the non-adversarial nature of the constitutional challenge to federal jurisdiction. Variations in formatting also distinguish U.S. practice from that in the and other realms. In the United States, requires "In re" to be fully italicized and capitalized as a procedural phrase in case names. In contrast, UK citations under the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) prefer "Re" without italics, a convention solidified post-1960s shifts toward simplified reporting styles in law reports like those from the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting.

Comparison with Adversarial Case Naming

Adversarial case naming in American jurisprudence, exemplified by , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), structures titles as " v. " to reflect a contest between opposing parties in a dispute. This format underscores the adversarial nature of the proceedings, where each side presents arguments to resolve conflicting claims. In contrast, the "In re" designation signals a non-adversarial proceeding focused on a specific matter, status, or petition rather than a bilateral conflict. Commonly used in contexts like , , or juvenile matters—such as , 387 U.S. 1 (1967)—it emphasizes unilateral review or administrative oversight without naming opponents, thereby centering the case on the subject at hand. This approach aligns with procedural conventions for cases lacking traditional opposition, including those involving representation of minors or incompetents under Rule 17. The "In re" format offers advantages in sensitive cases by avoiding the implication of antagonism between named parties, which can reduce perceived and promote judicial neutrality. For instance, in family or juvenile proceedings, it protects and maintains focus on welfare determinations rather than framing the action as a personal battle. This neutrality distinguishes it from adversarial titles while briefly relating to broader concepts like in rem actions, where jurisdiction targets or status without personal adversaries.

Distinction from In Rem and In Personam

The term refers to jurisdiction exercised over a specific person or entity, typically in adversarial proceedings where a judgment imposes personal liability or obligations on the . This contrasts with in re proceedings, which are non-adversarial and focus on the matter itself—such as a status, estate, or property—without directing claims against an individual party, thereby avoiding the personal confrontational nature of actions. The U.S. in (1877) established foundational distinctions, holding that jurisdiction requires the 's presence or consent within the forum state to bind them personally, whereas jurisdiction over absent parties in non-personal matters must adhere to different principles to ensure . In contrast, * targets the property or "thing" itself, allowing a to adjudicate in that res (Latin for thing) and bind all the world with its judgment, regardless of parties' involvement. Such actions, like proceedings, are often captioned In rem or In re followed by the property description (e.g., In re ), emphasizing control over the asset rather than personal liability. However, in re is broader than in rem, encompassing not only property-focused matters but any neutral proceeding involving a subject like or guardianship, where the court's authority derives from the matter's status rather than strict ownership disputes. An example of overlap occurs in bankruptcy cases, which are classified as in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's estate, incorporating quasi-in-rem elements in actions affecting specific property interests to satisfy claims, while also including in personam effects such as discharge of personal debts. These proceedings are titled In re [Debtor's Name] to reflect the court's control over the estate as a collective res, distinguishing them from adversarial suits while incorporating in rem-like effects on property rights. This usage underscores in re's role in facilitating proceedings that prioritize the matter's resolution over party-specific conflicts, as opposed to the direct personal targeting in in personam or the pure property universality in in rem.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_re_0
  2. https://www.flnb.uscourts.gov/sites/flnb/files/forms/styleguide.pdf
  3. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/legacy/2014/04/21/osg-citation-manual-2014.pdf
  4. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=in
  5. https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/CDMisc/ReadingGrp/GaiusInst4.pdf
  6. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/senectute.shtml
  7. https://eusp.org/sites/default/files/archive/rector/why-respublica-is-not-a-state.pdf
  8. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ENLO/B9789004271012-0059.xml?language=en
  9. https://lonang.com/wp-content/download/Blackstone-CommentariesBk2.pdf
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/res
  11. http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:res
  12. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/re
  13. https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program/Grammar/Cases/ablative-case-latin
  14. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/931/does-the-re-in-emails-have-an-ancient-origin
  15. https://herodotus.oc.newalexandria.info/read/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi052.perseus-lat2:64
  16. https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/phrase/123/
  17. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/how-to-read-a-u-s-supreme-court-opinion/
  18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/notice
  19. https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/RL/lectures/c09.out.pdf
  20. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=scholar
  21. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/chapter-11
  22. https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/content/re-09-50026-reg-general-motors-corporation
  23. https://dictionary.justia.com/in-re
  24. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/BR/186/807/1552038/
  25. https://www.plainsite.org/cite/51-ny-st-rep-415/
  26. https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1991/c2-91-1047.html
  27. https://www.flprobatelitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/837/2023/08/UPC_Final-Act_2023feb27.pdf
  28. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2529&context=klj
  29. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/1
  30. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-marriage-cases-33178
  31. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/
  32. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/1/
  33. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2519/index.do
  34. https://mitchellhamline.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/11/Bluebook-Citation.pdf
  35. https://appliedantitrust.com/000_antitrust_procedure_seminar_materials/basic_bluebook_citations.pdf
  36. https://libguides.uakron.edu/legal_citation/alwdtobluebook
  37. https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/bluebook
  38. https://www.legalbluebook.com/bluebook/v21/quick-style-guide
  39. https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/other/en-case-concerning-the-conservation-and-sustainable-exploitation-of-swordfish-stocks-in-the-south-eastern-pacific-ocean-chile-european-union-order-2001-1-thursday-15th-march-2001
  40. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3181325/AGLC4-with-Bookmarks-1.pdf
  41. https://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/4-300
  42. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_2006.pdf
  43. https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/case-law/anatomy-of-a-law-report/
  44. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_re
  45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/juvenile_court
  46. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_personam
  47. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/
  48. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem
  49. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/15322-civil-procedure-2025/resources/5.1-in-personam-in-rem-quasi-in-rem/
  50. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2340&context=lcp
  51. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/135-us-civil-procedure-for-international-students-2020-2021-edition/resources/6.3.6-in-rem-quasi-in-rem-and-in-personam-personal-jurisdiction/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.