11Rules, Restatements, and Uniform Laws

A paragraph says a model act governs a dispute because a citation to its section looks authoritative. The state enacted a different version. Another paragraph inserts § before a federal procedural rule number. Source classification solves the first problem; source-specific formatting solves the second.

Cite procedural and evidentiary rules; distinguish court rules from statutes; identify Restatement editions and comments; distinguish a uniform or model proposal from enacted law; and verify the version applicable to the proposition.

Indigo's ordinary pattern for current procedural and evidentiary rules is the abbreviated rule-set name followed by its rule number and subdivisions, without a section symbol or a date. Local conventions may differ. Historical rules need information identifying their historical status. Do not omit a material version merely because the current-rule convention is compact.

Model: Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(b).

The inspected rule requires a party citing a covered federal judicial disposition unavailable in a publicly accessible electronic database to file and serve a copy with the paper citing it. This is a bounded text demonstration (EX-008). It does not claim every circuit's separate appendix or filing requirements have been checked.

The official Federal Circuit compilation inspected for this handbook is dated October 6, 2026, and reproduces the federal rule separately from the circuit's local rule. Keep those two texts distinct. “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1” and “Federal Circuit Rule 32.1” are different sources even though their numbers match.

A Restatement synthesizes legal doctrine. It is not automatically an enacted statute or a binding judicial decision. A court may adopt, reject, distinguish, or use a Restatement provision. Cite the Restatement for its own statement; cite the adopting court when the proposition depends on that court's law.

Indigo's pattern identifies the particular Restatement title, spells out its ordinal edition, gives the section and any comment locator, and identifies institutional publisher and publication year. A comment letter belongs after the section. It is not a subsection invented from the reader's preferred ordering.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. The packet describes a wholly fictional Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations, section 8, comment b, issued by the fictional Harbor Institute in 2020. Training citation: Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations § 8 cmt. b (Harbor Inst. 2020). This illustrates syntax only; no real Restatement text or edition is represented.

An edition change can alter both text and numbering. A citation to the Second edition cannot support words found only in a later edition. Save the title page or publication information actually inspected. If an online excerpt omits its edition and date, locate that information before completing a full citation.

A model rule is a proposed framework. A uniform act is drafted for adoption across jurisdictions, often with local variations. Their own published text may be relevant to comparison, history, or interpretation. Their adoption by a state is a separate fact requiring a separate source.

The Uniform Commercial Code's model section and a state's enacted commercial-code section are related but distinct authorities. If your sentence concerns the enacted rule in a state, cite and read that state's applicable provision. Do not assume adoption was word-for-word or that amendments occurred simultaneously.

A model-act citation ordinarily identifies the act, section, institutional source where applicable, and edition/year. An enacted version follows the statute rules. “As amended” can identify an amendment status, but it does not supply missing knowledge of which amendment was inspected. Record the actual version in the source card.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. Packet: Harbor Uniform Notice Act § 4 proposes ten days' notice. Harbor Code title 8, § 20(b) (2025) enacts fourteen days' notice. The assignment asks what Harbor's enacted code says. Cite the enacted provision and describe fourteen days. If comparing model and enacted law, cite both and explain the difference. A perfectly formatted model citation is inadequate for a sentence falsely describing enacted law.

Indigo’s Restatement examples use Am. L. Inst.; the consulted Bluebook 22 B12.1 examples use A.L.I. These are edition/source conventions for the same real institution. The fictional Restatement in this chapter does not resolve that institutional choice. When citing an actual Restatement, identify the governing convention and preserve its actual edition and text rather than silently combining conventions.

Rule: set + number + subdivision. Restatement: title/edition + section/comment + institution/year. Uniform or model text: identify its own version. Enacted version: jurisdiction's statute. Legal force requires analysis beyond the citation pattern.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A supplied Uniform Harbor Transactions Act proposes a definition of electronic consent in § 4. A fictional state's enacted statute adopts similar language in Harbor Code § 40 but adds an exception in subsection (c). A fictional treatise says the uniform act is useful for understanding the statute. These materials are invented; they do not represent an actual uniform act or adoption.

The model's text helps explain an approach. The enacted statute supplies the jurisdiction's operative text in the packet. Their similarity does not eliminate the added exception. If your sentence says that Harbor law recognizes electronic consent without exception, the uniform act cannot establish the claim and the statute contradicts its breadth. Cite and explain the enacted provision, including the material exception. Use the model separately when discussing background or comparison.

A Restatement presents a related classification issue. Its section may synthesize a doctrinal position, but a court's treatment of that section requires its own source. Do not say a jurisdiction adopted a Restatement merely because a secondary source discusses it. Identify the actual judicial or statutory adoption material and inspect the scope. An opinion might adopt one subsection, discuss another, or reject an illustration. The publication's source type does not decide that question.

Procedural rules are another distinct category. A rule number identifies the operative provision within a particular rule set. A comment, note, proposed amendment, or historical draft may explain it without being the operative text. When a sentence describes what the rule requires, inspect the rule itself and the version relevant to the proceeding. When the sentence describes an explanatory note's reasoning, identify that explanatory material accurately.

For a model act, collect the title, section, responsible organization where required, and year or edition information. For a Restatement, collect the title, spelled-out ordinal, section, any comment or illustration locator, and institutional/year information under the governing convention. For an adopted statute, collect the actual code and provision. These are different source cards. A universal template that labels all three as statutes loses information the reader needs.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A Restatement-style packet supplies § 12, comment b, illustration 3. The cited proposition appears only in illustration 3. A pinpoint to § 12 alone may identify the general section while leaving the specific example hard to find. Include the supplied comment and illustration coordinates when they are material. Do not invent an illustration number from a list position on a reflowed webpage.

At the final review, separate what the source says from how the receiving jurisdiction uses it. “The model proposes,” “the Restatement explains,” “the rule requires,” and “the court adopted” describe different relationships. Each requires the corresponding evidence. If that evidence is missing, narrow the claim or research it. Adding an institutional abbreviation or correcting an ordinal can improve the citation, but it cannot turn a proposed model into enacted law.

A rule publication can contain operative rules, explanatory notes, proposed amendments, historical text, and publication instructions. Each item can be useful, but a citation must identify the item used. Start by asking whether your sentence describes a command, an explanation of a change, or a proposed future command. Then locate the corresponding text instead of citing the whole compilation for every claim.

Fictional training example — not legal authority. The Harbor Rules of Procedure packet contains Rule 8(b), an advisory note accompanying a 2025 amendment, and a proposed 2027 amendment. Rule 8(b) requires a signed request. The 2025 note explains why that requirement was added. The proposed amendment would permit an identified electronic substitute. The packet states that the proposal has not been adopted. “Rule 8(b) permits the electronic substitute” is wrong under the packet; “the proposal would permit an electronic substitute” accurately identifies both the text and its status.

Build three source records. For the operative rule, record the rule-set title, number, subdivision, and relevant version. For the explanatory note, record the rule to which it belongs and the amendment date it explains. For the proposed amendment, record the proposal's own identifying document, date, and status. Do not reuse the operative rule's yearless current citation as though it identified a dated explanatory note or future proposal. A useful additional description makes the distinction visible even where the compact rule abbreviation stays the same.

Comments and illustrations need their own pinpoints

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A packet supplies Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations § 8, comment b, illustration 3, published by Harbor Institute in 2020. Section 8 states the general proposition; comment b discusses delayed notice; illustration 3 describes a receipt lost during delivery. To cite the illustration, use Restatement (Second) of Harbor Obligations § 8 cmt. b, illus. 3 (Harbor Inst. 2020). The comma separates two locator units; it does not make the illustration a separately authored publication.

Read the general section, the relevant comment, and the illustration together. An illustration demonstrates the stated conditions; it is not a report that a real court decided those facts. Describe it as an illustration. If a court later adopts the same approach, the court's decision supplies a separate proposition and requires its own citation and passage check. Neither a recognizable institution nor an elaborate section locator changes a hypothetical into a holding.

Restatement edition labels are part of the title. Preserve Second, Third, or another spelled ordinal; do not replace it with a reporter-style 2d or 3d. If a volume has a subject subtitle, retain the identifying subtitle where needed. If the supplied document is a tentative draft, proposed final draft, or other prepublication form, preserve its actual status and date. Calling a draft a completed Restatement conceals the very distinction the reader needs to assess the source.

Compare adoption provision by provision

Fictional training example — not legal authority. A model instrument defines notice in § 2 and provides a remedy in § 7. Harbor's enacted code adopts the definition in § 40 but declines the model remedy and supplies a different remedy in § 45. A citation to Harbor Code § 40 supports adoption of the supplied definition; it does not establish adoption of the model's entire remedial system. A claim about the remedy must cite and read § 45. The research task is a provision-level comparison, not a yes/no label attached to the whole act.

A practical comparison table has four columns: model provision, enacted provision, material textual difference, and the proposition that depends on that difference. Add version information to both source headings. When an amendment changes one side, reopen the relevant row. This prevents a once-correct comparison from retaining the old model numbering under a newly substituted edition. It also reveals gaps: a blank enactment cell means adoption of that provision has not been established, not that the model automatically fills the space.

When citing professional-conduct or other model rules, apply the same distinction. The published model describes its own text. A jurisdiction's adopted rules describe that jurisdiction's actual instrument. The name “model rule” is not a synonym for “rule binding this court.” If the paragraph deliberately compares the two, identify both clearly and explain the relevant difference rather than compressing them into one ambiguous citation.