A very rare cast-iron armchair, with lyre back and floral motif, marked “Robert Wood/MAKER RIDGE RD PHIL”, American (Philadelphia), 1840-1858. This chair has gained repute from what I believe was a typo in "The Philadelphia Blue Book" dating it 1804 instead of 1840. Barbara says, "A marked 'Robert Wood' lyre-back chair is rare indeed.And that year is always the current year, so you wind up with every statute having the same parenthetical -- (2011).Which is the twin horror of being both wrong AND useless. In my mind, it's what one of the journals I worked on in law school did, which is to just get rid of the year in a statutory cite altogether.
There are lots of people who complain endlessly about the Bluebook, but I'm not usually one of them as I generally like the Bluebook . It certainly gets complex with statutes because they are changed more frequently, but information about when the statute or provision was written could indeed be useful.
How does that help in understanding the individual provision cited to? What makes this particularly enraging is that student editors rarely know this rule.
Instead, they cite to the year on the source they go to for cite-checking purposes -- the copyright of the online version in Westlaw or Lexis.
The company didn't exist in 1804 and decorative cast iron was not even being produced in America at that time".
I'm currently finishing up the final proofing of an article that is very heavy on statutory citations. When you cite to a statute, you have to include a parenthetical with a year in it. Like the year of a book, an article, a case, or almost anything else you would cite to, it might convey the year that statute came into existence.
And, if for some reason the statute has different text or content in different codifications, then that also should be discussed in the text in some way.