Chapter 7 answers

The model consists of the case name, year 2016, court designation IL, identifier 118845, and pinpoint ¶ 1. The identifier distinguishes the decision; it is neither a reporter volume nor paragraph number. The paragraph marker locates the passage within the opinion. Keep the neutral citation's components intact instead of converting them into a reporter volume/page pattern.

People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 1. Replace at 1 with the paragraph locator supplied by the opinion's system. The inspected paragraph supports the limited statement that the court affirms the appellate judgment. It does not authorize an unverified criminal-law proposition or regional reporter pinpoint. A parallel citation requires its own checked identifying and passage information.

The check covers the official Rule 6 text's citation instructions, including newer Illinois neutral citations and paragraph pinpoints and the possibility of additional reporter citations. It does not verify every Illinois briefing requirement, unpublished-order restriction, or later amendment after retrieval. Other acceptable limits include the absence of a nationwide state-rule survey and the absence of a case-treatment check. State the specific verified rule rather than an unlimited compliance claim.

Fictional training example — not legal authority.

Use ¶ 12 because the supplied receiving instruction selects the opinion's numbered paragraphs. PDF page 5 identifies a file sheet, not that paragraph number. Record both if useful for review, but do not substitute the viewer's sheet count in the reader-facing neutral citation. Source classification and the receiving rule determine the required locator.

Fictional training example — not legal authority.

No. The reporter's first page identifies the report but does not establish the corresponding location of paragraph 12. Inspect the reporter-paginated version and locate the same passage before adding a parallel pinpoint. If it remains unavailable, retain only verified information under the applicable receiving rule and record the limitation. Do not label an inferred location as checked.

Fictional training example — not legal authority.

Vale v. Harbor, No. 24-100, 2025 Fiction DB 900, at *4 (Harbor Ct. App. June 2, 2025). The fictional database identifier, star page, court, and full date are supplied fields. The asterisk distinguishes database pagination. The case and publication labels are training material, not real authority, despite their resemblance to genuine database citation structures.

The federal rule's subject is whether courts may prohibit or restrict citation of covered dispositions. Binding force is a different question governed by the decision's status and applicable law. Inspect the receiving court's treatment rules rather than inferring binding effect from permission to cite. A decision can be citeable and persuasive without being binding precedent.

Fictional training example — not legal authority.

Confirm the official reported version identifies the same decision and the relevant passage, then locate its reporter pinpoint. Replace slip pagination with the corresponding reporter locator and update any publication/court/date fields required by the format. Compare the text for revision or supersession. A new publication route does not justify carrying an old slip-page number into a different pagination system.

Indigo 2.0's state table provides edition-specific orientation to citation formats and local variation, but its entries have not all been independently checked against current jurisdiction rules. Equivalent wording is acceptable if it preserves both the table's usefulness and the limit. Avoid calling it a complete current directory or implying a historical publication date represents fresh verification.