Law Library Writing Hack: Microsoft Word Tip

Hack # 5: Cross-referencing Footnotes (and Endnotes) with Microsoft Word

When working with a manuscript that has footnotes, it is common that a footnote in a document will refer to a source previously footnoted. It is common to cross-reference to that footnote rather than repeating the source information in its entirety in the subsequent footnote, using something like "supra note __" in the subsequent footnote.  But when working on a draft of the manuscript, it is not uncommon for additional footnotes to be inserted in the manuscript between those two cross-referenced notes, making the cross-reference note number incorrect as a result. If you use Microsoft Word's cross-referencing feature you can avoid having to manually correct each cross-referenced footnote note number.  (The same procedure also applies to endnotes if you are using endnotes rather than footnotes.)

Follow these steps:

1.    Enter the text to preface your cross-reference. In this example, we will use “supra,” so you would type “supra note”.

2.    Leave a space after your text, then go to the Insert tab, and click on Cross-reference (see red-boxed items in the ribbon below).

Note:  Typical for Word, there are other ways to access the Cross-reference feature.  You can also go to the Reference tab and click on Cross-reference.

                                                
  3.  This will bring up the Cross-reference dialogue box (below). Under Reference type, select Footnote. Under Insert reference to, select Footnote number. The “Insert as hyperlink” box is checked by default and you will want to leave it checked.

Note: If you are working with Endnotes rather than Footnotes in your draft, you would chose the “Reference type” of “Endnote” from the drop-down menu instead of Footnotes to see your list of endnotes.

4.    At the bottom of the Cross-reference dialogue box, you will see a large area titled “For which footnote.” Listed in this area is every existing footnote in your document. Select the footnote that you wish to refer to by scrolling through the list to highlight the one you want. Click “Insert.” A hyperlink to the selected footnote number will appear where your cursor is in the document.

5.    Close the dialogue box, and continue composing your footnote as usual.

6.    The cross-referenced footnotes do not self-adjust every time you add or delete a footnote between the references. In order to update the cross-references, when you have completed the draft, place your cursor in a footnote and select the text of all footnotes by pressing Ctrl + A. Once all of the footnote text is selected, press F9. A dialogue box will open saying “Word cannot undo this action. Do you want to continue?” Select Yes, and your cross-references will be updated!

Cross-referencing footnotes has some limitations. For example, Word will not change cross-references if you edit the content of the footnote referred to so as to remove the original source you were cross-referencing. Cross-referencing only picks up footnote number changes when footnotes have been added or deleted. However, cross-referencing is still a valuable time-saver because you will not have to manually update each footnote (or endnote) cross-reference.

Do you have questions about features in Microsoft Word for future Law Library Research Hacks? Send your questions to csfester@uw.edu. For more guidance with Microsoft Word, see the Gallagher Law Library Guide
Word Tips for Legal Writers.

Practice time!


Using the two-paragraph block below and the footnote text below the line, copy and paste the two paragraphs into a blank Microsoft Word document.

• Replace the bracketed notes [1], [2] and [3] in the paragraphs with footnote references in Word.  To do this, insert your cursor in front of the [1] and holding down Ctrl + Alt press the F key (Ctrl+Alt_F). This will insert the reference 1 in superscript in the text and add a superscript reference below a line for the text of footnote one. Copy and paste the content of the [1] footnote into the superscript 1 footnote. Delete the [1] and its footnote text, and delete the [1] reference from the text of the paragraph.

• Repeat this step for notes [2] and [3] in the paragraphs.

• Now follow the instructions from the Blog above to create a cross-reference for the "Alstott" item in footnote three which is highlighted in yellow (cross-referencing to note 1). Then do the same for the Zelenak note in footnote three.

• Now insert a random additional footnote in between footnotes 1 and 3 in the text (Ctrl+Alt+F will insert a new footnote reference number) and use the instructions in #6 above to update the cross reference (place cursor in the footnotes, Ctrl+A to highlight all the footnotes and press F9 to see the cross-references update). 

            With respect to the luck/choice distinction, tax scholarship often focuses on strict cuts, which would compensate only for inequities that result from brute luck (e.g. an infant born with a disability) but not inequities resulting from option luck (i.e. circumstances that result from chances one knowingly confronts, such as disability incurred from bike riding).[1] This does not create much room to consider parenting.  Indeed, some theorists that situate caregiving into these strict cuts have likened procreation and/or caregiving to a chosen disability, which does not require society’s help.[2]

Along the second dimension––what it is precisely that should be equalized––there is again tremendous variation in the non-legal literature, spawning an “equality of what?” debate.  But tax scholarship has focused most often on resource-based approaches––i.e. approaches that argue for ex ante equalization of resources.[3] This has been natural to do when analyzing a tax on income (a primary resource for enhancing well-being).  But, like the utilitarian assumptions discussed, these approaches seem to assume that individuals with the same stock of resources have the same options, which again seems unlikely to be true among parents using different models.

---

[1] See, e.g. Anne Alstott, Inheritance Taxation and Equal Opportunity 121 Harv. L. Rev. 469, 478 (2007) [hereinafter Alstott, Inheritance Taxation] (Here, Ronald Dworkin’s distinction between option luck (brought about by one’s choices and brute luck) (completely random) is canonical.). Lawrence Zelenak, Endowment Taxation, 55 Duke L. J. 1145, 1154 (2006) (Although there is great diversity in liberal egalitarian theories of distributive justice, the moral distinction between people’s “brute luck” and the results of people’s choices is central to most liberal egalitarians.).

[2] See supra Section 4(A).

[3] See, e.g. Alstott, Inheritance Taxation, supra note __, at 471 (analyzing equality of opportunity with resource egalitarian frame); Linda Sugin. A Philosophical Objection to the Optimal Tax Model, 54 Tax L. Rev. 229, 229 (2011) [hereinafter Sugin, Philosophical Objection) (focusing on Rawls and Dworkin in discussion of libertarian egalitarianism). See also Zelenak, Endowment Taxation, supra note __ (extending discussion beyond resource egalitarianism and noting the legal scholarship’s general failure to do so).