LawTeX 未生成引文目录

Question

您需要运行两次编译。

您必须进行两次编译运行，以便第一次运行的输出（例如，页码）在第二次运行中以可打印的形式流入 ToA。（请参阅手册第 2 页）。

原因是，只有在第一次运行结束时才能完全知道诸如页码之类的信息；这些信息.aux在第一次运行期间已经“停留”在文件中；该.aux文件在第二次运行开始时被读入，并将其信息插入到正确的位置。

我安装了 lawtex 并尝试了您的代码。

在我定义了一个虚拟的 Raich 条目并为强制字段输入虚拟值之后，我在 pdflatex（Lawtex 使用 pdfshellescape）下进行编译时没有遇到任何错误，并且通常的两次运行会生成目录和索引，即权威目录，正如预期的那样。

我已启用 write18，因此 Lawtex 会自动makeindex在每个 ToA 部分（案例、法规、其他）上运行，所以我不必在 pdflatex 运行之间手动执行此操作。

平均能量损失

\providecommand{\documentclassflag}{}
\documentclass[12pt,\documentclassflag]{lawbrief} 

\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{newcent,microtype}
\usepackage{setspace,xcolor}
\usepackage[hyperindex=false,linkbordercolor=white,pdfborder={0 0 0}]{hyperref}

%%Citations

%The command \makeandletter turns the ampersand into a printable character, rather than a special alignment tab
\makeandletter

%We use \newcase because the \emph will throw off parsing in \citecase

\citecase{Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977)}
\citecase{United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)}
\citecase{United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)}
\citecase{United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003)}
\citecase{Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)}
\citecase{Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 665 (1944)}
\citecase{Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)}
\citecase{Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. (2018)}
\citecase{Raich v. XXX, 999 XXX (9999)}%

\index{Statute}{aa@\textsc{U.S. Const.} art. I, \S 8, cl. 3.|idxpassim}

\newstatute{18 U.S.C.} {}
\newarticle{Epstein}{Richard A. Epstein}{The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power}{73 VA. L. REV. (1987)}{1387}{}


%Set the information for the title page (later produced by \makefrontmatter)
\docket{No. 99-999} 
\petitioner{p p p}
\respondents{r r r}
\circuit{\em{n}th}
\brieffor{Petitioner}
\author{Anonymous \# 999\\{\em Counsel for Petitioner}}
\address{123 Main Street \\ city state code\\ (203) 555-1234}

\questionpresented{{ q q q? \doublespacing\par }}

\begin{document}
%This commands creates the title page, table of contents, and table of authorities
\makefrontmatter

%Sets the formatting for the entire document after the front matter
\parindent=2.5em 
\setlength{\parskip}{1.25ex plus 2ex minus .5ex} 
\setstretch{1.45}  

\section{Argument}
\subsection{Analysis Under Commerce Clause}
\newpage
\subsubsection{\emph{Stare decisis} does not favor \emph{Raich}}
\newpage
\subsubsection{\emph{Scarborough} is not consistent with the Court's test under \emph{Lopez}}
\newpage
\subsubsection{Machine guns have an ``attenuated effect'' on interstate commerce under \emph{Morrison}}

``\emph{Stare decisis} is not an inexorable command'' \cite{Payne} and ``\ldots when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, ``this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent.'' \pincite{Smith}{649}. Considered by scholars under many lenses of Constitional interpretation, \cite{Wickard} is generally viewed as a misstep in the grand scheme of this Court's historied jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, especially in light of this Court's later rulings. \See (``Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of homegrown wheat is `commerce among the several states?' '') \pincite{Epstein}{1451}. When analyzing whether to adopt or overrule prescedent, this Court turns to four primary factors as established in \cite{Janus}. Those being: the quality of the decision, the workability of the decision, developments since the decision, and reliance on the decision.  \par

In addressing the first prong, the \emph{Raich} majority heavily relies on \emph{Wickard} even though this line of reasoning lies in direct conflict with both \cite{Lopez} and \cite{Morrison}. It appears Justice O'Connor shared this view, who dissenting in \emph{Raich} wrote, ``[T]he Court appears to reason that the placement of local activity in a comprehensive scheme confirms that it is essential to that scheme. If the Court is right, then \emph{Lopez} stands for nothing more than a drafting guide \ldots'' \cite[s]{Raich}(O'Connor, J., dissenting)
\subsubsection{{The 9th Circuit's original analysis of \emph{Stewart} was correct}}
\end{document}

Answer 1