Writer: How to make multiple tables of authorities without creating duplicate entries?

English
,
#1

So, I’m trying to create a document that is very similar to this. I’ve figured everything out except how to create several different tables of authorities (“TOA”) for: statutes, cases, constitutional provisions, and other authorities. My jurisdiction requires that they be separated.

I’ve been googling this problem and I only see entries from 2008. And I see other lawyers recommend LibreOffice. So I have to assume this issue has been fixed sometime in the last 6 years.

My issue is that I need to define several different indexes to create the TOA. When I do that, however, I lose the option to combine identical entries. LibreOffice then produces a TOA that is basically worthless to me—it lists every single entry without combining the same case as one authority.

I can create an index for each category of authority by clicking: Insert → Indexes and Tables → Entry → “New-User Defined Index”
I can also mark all of the citations in the document as being part of that index. My problem, however, is that when I insert the index and select the type, I am not able to combine identical entries. That option is only available if I choose the Alphabetical Index for my authorities. This results in an index that has the same case repeated 100 different times.

Any ideas on a better way to create a table of authorities?

#2

Thanks for the interesting question and example. Currently I think it will be a struggle to create a set of indexes that automatically produce the entries you require in the linked example. You can however get quite close and then manually edit the Other Authorities index. Note that each sub-index in the ToA needs to be treated as a separate index, but at present only one alphabetic index is allowed (the related enhancement to get this increased is fdo#30940).

The workaround is to use an alphabetic index for the Cases ToA index and user-defined indexes for the other indexes. The main problem is alphabetic ordering in the Other Authorities ToA index e.g.,

Los Angeles Administrative Code

Section 10.36 …26, 40

Los Angeles County Code

Section 11.11.080 …14

… rather than page number ordering, which is how user-defined indexes are arranged:

Los Angeles County Code

Section 11.11.080 …14

Los Angeles Administrative Code

Section 10.36 …26, 40

Obtaining multiple indexes is no problem. Use the Alphabetic index facility for the Cases as this allows for alphabetic sorting and easy multi-level entries based on keyword. Then create a user-defined index for each subsequent ToA index as needed e.g., Insert > Indexes and Tables > Entry… > click the New User-defined Index button:

insert index entry 1
insert index entry 1901×301 22.3 KB

… entries can then be added on a per-level basis to each required index e.g., the text “Los Angeles County Code” highlighted and marked as a level 1 entry:

insert index entry 2
insert index entry 2901×301 23.4 KB

…and the adjacent text “§ 11.11.080” highlighted and marked as a level 2 entry “Section 11.11.080”:

insert index entry 3
insert index entry 3901×301 23.1 KB

Entries of this type will however be pulled out to create the (Other Authorities) index in page order (rather than alphabetic order). It is not clear from the example entries in the Statutes or Rules ToA indexes whether these are in alphabetic or page number order. The Treatises ToA index appears to be in page number order e.g., “cgs024.htm” on p.40 prior to “cgs023.htm”, also on p.40.

Here (ODT) is an example, using extracts pulled from the provided PDF (please excuse the basic formatting). Note the entry in the Cases ToA (alphabetic) index for “Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage”. I inserted the two index entries in this manner:

insert index entry 4
insert index entry 4803×483 44 KB

In order for each matching entry in the Cases ToA index to be combined, the Entry and 1st Key field values must match (respectively, across ToA index entries). The Cases ToA index entries can then be combined using these settings:

Insert Index/Table settings
Insert Index/Table settings802×737 58.9 KB

These combining options are only available for an alphabetic index, not a user-defined index (which is ordered by page number). Note the problem in the Other Authorities ToA index (which I indicated above).

#3

What’s your operating system, out of curiosity ?

#4

Thank you for your response. It didn’t occur to me that this list wouldn’t be in alphabetical order. My inquiry actually concerned duplicate entries. When I mark the same case through the document, then insert the index, here’s what I get: http://i.imgur.com/0tc1W3d.png. When I’m at the the Index/Table screen, this is what I see: http://i.imgur.com/bBVtsDR.png. It doesn’t actually allow me to combine identical entries. But it seems like LibreOffice won’t support a ToA function at this stage :frowning:

#5

@rautamiekka, Debian 7 + LXDE + Openbox. @RedditAddict11, it is possible to combine entries, but only for Alphabetic indexes, which is what needs to be used for the Cases ToA index as it is in alphabetic order. The problem is still with the Other Authorities ToA index, which needs to be alphabetic in order, but also has to be a User-defined index (as we are already using the Alphabetic index for the Cases). I will update my answer to be clearer about this.

#6

@mariosv - Thank you for your idea. You would have to manually delete that prefix after you generate the index, right? You would also have to insert headings in the middle of that index. When you update the index, LibreOffice automatically removes those manual changes. So, if you have to add a citation after you generate the Table of Authorities, you’d have to perform those manual actions again. That is no big deal if you only have a few cites, but its unworkable if you have 8 pages of citations

#7

It’s been a bit more than a week since I asked this question, and I wanted to provide my conclusions for any future lawyers that read this. The short answer is that you cannot create a separate index for cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, regulations, or other authorities. Or, not in any meaningful way at least. So LibreOffice is probably not an option for lawyers that litigate in California (or any other states that require a table of authorities).

User oweng was kind enough to give my question a shot, but I think he missed the call of the question and instead restated a procedure I mentioned in my original question. He also gave information on how to make multiple key fields, which aren’t relevant to my question and are probably unnecessary for most lawyers.

Essentially, I was trying to create multiple user-defined indexes and combine any duplicate entries. Right now, if you cite a case or statute multiple times and index it in a user-defined entry, you get something like this:

  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)…1
  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)…1
  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)…2
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)…2
  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)…2
  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)…3

Duplicate entries like these obviously make this something other than a Table of Authorities. Here’s what is supposed to look like:

  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)…1, 2, 3
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)…2

As I mentioned in my original question, you can only combine duplicate entries if you choose the Alphabetical Index for your authorities. But you can only create one Alphabetical Index. So, lawyers have to choose which index they want to look good: their cases, their statutes, or their constitutional provisions. You can’t make multiple tables of authorities and have them turn out correctly. Not yet, at least.

Because lawyers need to separate their statutes, cases, regulations, court rules, and constitutional provisions, you need more than one category of alphabetical indexes. LibreOffice currently does not support that. So, it probably cannot be used by lawyers that need to create a Table of Authorities.

User oweng did, however, shed light on a new problem: the lack of an alphabetical order option for new user-defined entries. So, not only are you going to have a bunch of duplicate entries, they will not be alphabetized. Big problem. This basic functionality is available on almost every other major word processor, but is absent here.

Edit: I should also mentioned that there is no option to retain formatting. So even if lawyers could get it to work, they’d have to go back and re-italicize their 100s of cases manually.

#8

Thanks for reporting back. I have edited my answer to add a link to the related enhancement request to get multiple alphabetic indexes supported in LO. The enhancement request to support italic and bold in the alphabetic index is fdo#47598. The functionality you require is certainly not there at present, which is what I initially indicated i.e., a certain amount of manual editing would be required. I appreciate this is not good enough for legal requirements (which are often highly specific).

#9

Is this issue resolved? Is the “Table of Authority” similar in MS word available in LO writer?

#10

Issue unresolved. I have been tracking this issue for 20 years now. A little history: Coming out of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, WordPerfect was dominant in the legal profession. Even before WYSIWYG versions, WP could handle these tables of authorities brilliantly. I remember working on briefs as a law clerk using WP 4.2 (1988). I could cite to authority in a footnote, block it out, create a reference, and have it appear in the proper table of authorities. All of this was before Corel purchased WP.

But then Microsoft did something brilliant too. Incorporating all necessary functionality to address the legal industry (and no doubt other industries), they also got an entire generation of college students hooked on their products by nearly giving them away. This is how WP was unseated. Now we WP users are a dying breed, and even downloadable templates in *.wpd format are disappearing from court websites. It’s all MSWord.

Open source movement has missed a golden opportunity here.

#11

In addition, this is NOT just a California-related issue. I practice in 4 states, and Libre/Open is hamstrung and really cannot be used anywhere in the legal industry. And it’s not just a U.S. problem, as I have co-counseled on cases in other countries where this would be an issue. And it’s a problem whether you are in state or federal court.
This has been the most important factor preventing me from cutting ties with Windows and with proprietary software. I still use WP 8 (1996?) and it still works brilliantly. (I do get into trouble when I have to collaborate with a Word addict on a document where we need to track changes with redline/strikeout, where Libre/Open still is not an altogether viable alternative either . . .)
So now you have millions of lawyers and law firms worldwide, and thousands of courts, all switching to subscription-based MSWord.
Opportunity lost. I cannot believe it is that difficult if Corel was killing it with text-based product in early 1990s. Quite sad.

#12

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.