Also known as: above
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A citational signal directing the reader to an authority cited earlier in the same document. The signal appears after the pinpoint or parenthetical and replaces a full repeat of the earlier citation.
Serena Soto sued her landlord after discovering hidden mold. Her brief cited the Restatement section on undisclosed conditions and later referred to the same provision with supra when arguing that the landlord's active concealment extended liability.
Skylar Sullivan offered a state agency document bearing an official seal. Counsel authenticated it under the evidence rule and later used supra when discussing the same seal requirement in the reply brief.
Sofia Stern sought to enforce an oral services contract. Her motion cited the Restatement section allowing a later memorandum and invoked supra when returning to that timing rule in the reply.
Sasha Stone challenged an assessment in a common-interest community. The brief cited the Restatement exception for such obligations and used supra when reiterating the carve-out in the conclusion.
Sylvia Santos included a preemptive right in her will. The petition cited the Restatement section on reasonable restraints and referred back with supra when addressing the price and timing conditions.
Stella Shapiro argued substantive due process in a constitutional brief. After citing Roe v. Wade for the privacy foundation, counsel used supra when linking the same precedent to later marriage and procreation cases.
In March 1970, Jane Roe, a single woman residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted a federal action against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face. She also sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the statutes. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant. She wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. She could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal abortion. James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes. Two such prosecutions were pending against him in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions. He claimed that for many cases he was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint also naming the District Attorney as defendant. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple. Mrs. Doe was suffering from a neural-chemical disorder. Her physician had advised her to avoid pregnancy until her condition materially improved. She had discontinued use of birth control pills pursuant to medical advice. If she should become pregnant she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court for the Northern District of Texas. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class and Dr. Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. The Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy and did not have standing. It concluded that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face. The court dismissed the Does' complaint while denying injunctive relief. The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford appealed to the Supreme Court from that part of the District Court's judgment denying the injunction. The defendant District Attorney cross-appealed from the grant of declaratory relief. Both sides also took protective appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending decision by the Supreme Court.
View caseA writer may use supra once an authority has already been cited in full earlier in the same document. The signal replaces the full citation and directs the reader back to that earlier reference.
Supra may be used with or without a new pinpoint. When the writer wishes to direct the reader to a different page or section than the original citation, the new pinpoint follows the supra signal.
Supra refers to material already cited earlier in the document. Infra refers to material that will be cited later. The two signals are opposites and are never used interchangeably.
No. Supra operates only within a single document. A later filing must either repeat the full citation or use a short-form citation appropriate to that new document.
Supra is optional. A writer may always repeat the full citation. The signal is used for brevity once the reader has already been directed to the authority.
…166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska , supra . This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court…