> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://vaquill.ai/docs/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Citation Formats > Which citation strings resolve, why the form your state prints is the safest one to send, and which forms are refused on purpose `GET /statutes/resolve` turns a citation string into one exact section. This page answers the two questions that decide whether it works for you: **what to send**, and **when to scope it**. ## The short answer: send back the citation we gave you Every section we return carries a `citation` field. That string is the form the publishing jurisdiction itself prints, and feeding it back is guaranteed to resolve to the same section. ```json Result from /statutes/search theme={"theme":"github-dark"} { "actId": "STATE_GA_T51_C1_S51-1-6", "citation": "O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6", "sectionTitle": "Recovery of damages upon breach of legal duty." } ``` ```bash Feed it straight back theme={"theme":"github-dark"} curl -G https://api.vaquill.ai/api/v1/us/statutes/resolve \ -H "Authorization: Bearer vq_key_..." \ --data-urlencode "cite=O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6" ``` If you are storing citations in your own database, store the `citation` value we return rather than a form you construct. It round-trips by definition, and it survives us adding jurisdictions. ## You do not have to send Bluebook Both the Bluebook form and the form the state's own courts use resolve to the same section. You do not need a per-state table. | You send | Resolves to | | ------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------- | | `Ga. Code Ann. § 51-1-6` **or** `O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6` | the same Georgia section | | `Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.060` **or** `RCW 59.18.060` | the same Washington section | | `Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10` **or** `R.C. 2305.10` | the same Ohio section | | `Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1-602` **or** `T.C.A. § 49-1-602` | the same Tennessee section | | `Alaska Stat. § 11.76.115` **or** `AS 11.76.115` | the same Alaska section | Also accepted, because real documents contain them: * **The code name after the section.** `§ 292.290, RSMo` and `§ 162.41, Fla. Stat.` resolve exactly like the name-first forms. * **An edition year inside the code name.** `Ala. Code 1975, § 17-14-2` and `NMSA 1978, § 22-23-1.1`. The year names the edition, not the section, and is ignored. * **Doubled section symbols.** `Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1950.5`. * **A trailing period**, so a citation lifted out of a sentence works: `42 U.S.C. § 1983.` * **Typographic dashes.** Text copied from a PDF or Word document carries non-breaking hyphens, figure dashes and minus signs instead of `-`. They are invisible on screen and they are normalized for you. * **Pinpoint subsections.** `42 U.S.C. § 1983(b)(2)` resolves to the parent section and echoes `(b)(2)` back in `subsection`. ## Forms that are refused on purpose Some acronyms belong to two jurisdictions. For those, `resolve` returns `resolved: false` rather than guessing. | Acronym | Claimed by | | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------- | | `MCA` | Montana **and** Mississippi Code Annotated | | `IC` | Indiana **and** Idaho Code | | `G.S.` | North Carolina **and** Connecticut General Statutes | | `G.L.` | Massachusetts **and** Rhode Island General Laws | | bare `R.S.` | Louisiana **and** New Jersey Revised Statutes | `resolved: false` on one of these is the correct answer, not a gap. A wrong section is a wrong statement of the law; an unresolved citation is a question you can answer. **Pass `state` and they resolve.** You have told us which jurisdiction you mean, so there is nothing left to guess: ```bash theme={"theme":"github-dark"} # resolved: false - MCA is Montana AND Mississippi --data-urlencode "cite=MCA § 27-2-204" # resolves - Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204 --data-urlencode "cite=MCA § 27-2-204" -d "state=mt" ``` The same applies to a form carrying no jurisdiction at all: Virginia's own in-state form is the bare word `Code`, so `cite=Code § 8.01-243&state=va` resolves while the string alone cannot. Connecticut and North Carolina both print `General Statutes § ...`, which names a compilation but no jurisdiction. Those resolve the same way: `cite=General Statutes § 42a-1-101&state=ct`. ## Court rules Many states cite a court rule with no jurisdiction token at all, because inside that state none is needed. Those resolve on the set acronym alone: | You send | Resolves to | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------- | | `MCR 3.709` | Michigan Court Rules | | `JuCR 7.15` | Washington Juvenile Court Rules | | `N.D.R.Civ.P. 64` | North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure | | `M. R. Civ. P. 17` | Montana Rules of Civil Procedure | | `Rule 901, SCRE` | South Carolina Rules of Evidence | Punctuation and case do not matter: `I.I.R. 4`, `IIR 4` and `iir 4` are the same citation. Some set acronyms are shared. `CR` is both the Kentucky Civil Rules and the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules; `RAP` belongs to Washington, Kentucky and West Virginia; `TCR` to Oregon and West Virginia. These return `resolved: false` until you pass `state`, and they are refused on the acronym's own ambiguity, **not** on whether we happen to hold that rule number for one state only. A gap in our coverage must never read as disambiguation. ```bash theme={"theme":"github-dark"} --data-urlencode "cite=CR 56" # resolved: false - CR is KY and WA --data-urlencode "cite=CR 56" -d "state=wa" # Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56 ``` ## Scoping: a constraint, not a hint `state` and `corpusType` **narrow** a lookup. They never redirect one. `cite=O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6&state=ga&corpusType=STATE` returns the same section as the unscoped call. `cite=O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6&state=tx` does **not** find a Texas section that happens to share the number. It returns `resolved: false`. That refusal is the point. Scope when a citation form is shared across jurisdictions or corpora, which is exactly when a bare lookup could pick the wrong one: * `8 CCR 1206-2` is Colorado and `22 CCR 76227` is California. The acronym alone cannot say which, so pass `state`. * A rule number and a statute section often collide. If your citation names a court rule, pass `corpusType=STATE_RULES` so a same-numbered statute cannot answer instead. If you are not disambiguating, leave the scope off. Scoping an unambiguous citation cannot improve the answer, and a scope that disagrees with the citation turns a good result into `resolved: false`. ## Scoping on search is a different thing On `POST /statutes/search`, `state` and `corpusType` filter the candidate pool before ranking. Two consequences worth knowing: * A **recognized citation** passed as the `query` is pinned to rank 1 at `relevanceScore: 1.0`, scoped or not. If you want one exact section, prefer `/statutes/resolve`: it is cheaper and it tells you whether the citation is real. * For a **natural-language query**, scoping changes which candidates are considered, so scoped and unscoped searches legitimately return different result sets. That is filtering working, not a bug. ## When something does not resolve Compare against the ambiguous-acronym table above. If it is on that list, add `state`. A scope that disagrees with the citation returns `resolved: false`. Retry without `state` and `corpusType` to find out whether the scope was the problem. `POST /statutes/search` with the citation as the `query` will surface the section even when the string is not a form we parse, and the result carries the `citation` we do recognize. A citation that a jurisdiction genuinely prints and that we cannot read back is a defect on our side, not yours. Send it to [contact@vaquill.ai](mailto:contact@vaquill.ai) and we will fix the parser. Case law citations are not covered here. The Data API serves statutes, regulations, constitutions and court rules; it is not a case law API.