Footnotes and Cite-Check (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check)

Legal scholarship runs on a dense footnote apparatus, and HLR editors run a full cite-check / source-pull: they obtain every cited source and confirm that each footnote actually supports its proposition, that quotations are exact, and that pincites are right. The author who is pull-ready before submission sails through; the one who is not faces painful rounds. This skill builds the apparatus and audits it for that scrutiny.

When to trigger

• Building footnotes as you draft, or auditing them before submission
• Preparing for the source-pull after an offer
• A footnote carries a proposition you are not sure the source supports
• Quotations, pincites, or short forms feel shaky after editing moved footnotes

What the apparatus must do

1. Support every proposition. Each assertion of law or fact in the text has a footnote whose source

actually states (or, with the right signal, supports) it — at the exact page cited.

1. Carry the qualifications. Caveats, contrary authority, and side disputes live in footnotes so the

text reads as a clean argument (see the text/footnote division in hlr-writing-style).

1. Be verifiable by a stranger. A student editor with no prior knowledge must be able to pull each

source and confirm the footnote — that is the whole test.

Pull-readiness: the author's source file

Before submission, assemble a source file: a copy (or precise locator) of every cited source with the cited page marked and the supported proposition noted. This is the single best predictor of an easy cite-check.

Self-running cite-check (do this before editors do)

• Proposition ↔ source match. Read each footnote against the page it cites. If the page does not

support the claim, fix the cite or soften the claim — never leave the gap.

• Quotation accuracy. Check every quotation character-for-character against the source; verify the pincite.
• Signal accuracy. Confirm the signal matches the relationship (see hlr-sources-and-bluebook).
• Short-form integrity. After any footnote reordering, re-verify every Id. and supra — these break

silently when notes move.

• No orphan or dead cites. Every footnote resolves; no broken cross-references or rotted URLs.

Checklist

• [ ] Every text proposition has a supporting footnote, pincited to the exact page
• [ ] Source file assembled: every source kept with the cited page marked
• [ ] Each footnote re-read against its source page (proposition actually supported)
• [ ] Every quotation verified character-for-character and pinned
• [ ] Signals match relationships; short forms (Id./supra) re-verified after moves
• [ ] Web sources archived with access dates (link rot)
• [ ] No orphan footnotes, dead cross-references, or unsupportable claims

Anti-patterns

• Footnotes that gesture at a source which does not actually support the proposition
• Quotations not checked against the original (a cite-check failure that erodes trust fast)
• Dangling Id./supra after footnotes were reordered in drafting or editing
• Citing web sources without an archived, dated capture (link rot at proof time)
• Leaving the source-gathering until editors ask — assemble the source file before submission

Output format

【Apparatus】every proposition footnoted + pincited? [Y/N]
【Source file】all sources kept with cited pages marked? [Y/N]
【Self cite-check】propositions match sources; quotations exact? [Y/N]
【Short forms】Id./supra re-verified after moves? [Y/N]
【Pull-ready】a stranger could verify every footnote? [Y/N]
【Next】hlr-writing-style (text/footnote balance) → hlr-submission

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — citators (Shepard's/KeyCite), archiving (Perma.cc), reference managers
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — HLR's Bluebook role and editorial cite-check practice