Strategies Behind Quoting a Quote
Michael R. Smith University of Wyoming College of Law Laramie, Wyoming
A legal writer will often decide to quote a passage from a case only to realize that the passage in question is itself a quote from another source. If the writer is committed to quoting rather than paraphrasing in this situation[1], the writer must decide whether to (1) access, quote, and cite the original source of the passage, or (2) quote and cite the more recent source and indicate in the citation that the passage is a quote of a quote. There are three basic reasons why a legal writer may choose the latter approach of quoting a quote.
First, a writer may want to quote and cite the more recent authority for the very reason that it is more recent. As a matter of course, legal writers generally cite the most recent authority for a point of law. Even if the quoted passage came originally from a binding older case, it still makes strategic sense to quote and cite the more recent binding case that reaffirms the point of law.
We can see this strategy in Justice Hill's opinion in the recent Wyoming Supreme Court case of Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Association, Inc.:
The ambiguity which justifies examining extrinsic evidence must exist... in the language of the document itself. It cannot be found in subsequent events or conduct of the parties, matters which are extrinsic evidence...
