A proper bluebook posting for the US Supreme Court, should reflect in this order: first party, v for versus, second party, reporter volume, reporter abbreviation, first page of case, specific page referred to and finally the date of the decision. Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, 134 S.Ct. 467 (Mem) (2013) This is the last citation made since the case was decided May 5, 2014 and the only citation for that date is through the LexisNexis notation that my classmate has above posted. The most recent date of the case is noted above as 2013 where a motion was filed for the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral arguments as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Blue Book Proper Citation"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

The classmate is correct in her note that the actual Supreme Court document from their website shows the above citation as how they noted it should be shown. With that notation from the Supreme Court on citing the case I would say the classmate has correctly cited a case that has not had the final decision published.

My Blue Book Citation:
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 355-356, 382 (1977)
Please note that the first name of party is follow by (v) meaning versus, then the second party name is documented followed by a comma and the reporter volume number, the reporter abbreviation, the first page of the case, the specific pages referred to and followed by the date of the decision.

One of the issues brought forth by the Arizona Bar was that price advertising would bring about commercialization and it would reflect badly on the integrity of the profession. They felt it would cause the client to feel the attorney was only interested in the client’s case based on a profit margin rather than on a genuine care for the client and how the law and how it would apply to the client’s situation.

The court felt compared attorney advertisements with other well respected professions such as banking and engineering which are highly regarded and noted that the lack of attorney advertising came about more on the rule of etiquette rather than ethics. In fact, the lack of advertising limits the public’s ability to determine the need for services where there is a real need as the clients either don’t know where to turn or fear they cannot afford the services.

The court held that advertising would not cause the public to be misled but felt without it an important service to the public was not being met. The court felt there would be no adverse effect on the public if specific types of services could be advertised as long as the attorney honored the advertised price for as long as the ad runs.

    References
  • Columbia Law Review, Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, & Yale Law Review (Eds.). (2005). The Blue Book (18th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Gannett House.
  • Supreme Court of the United States. (2014). 2013 Term Opinions of the Court. Retrieved from Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=13